The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the importance of credible and consistent testimonies in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Sekhri, J.

This acquittal appeal has been directed against judgment dated 29.07.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda (hereafter referred to as ‘trial court’), in case titled State Vs. Hafizullah and others, in File No.04/Sessions, arising out of FIR No.19/2005, of Police Station Doda, for offences under Sections 302/307 of the Ranbir Penal Code 1989 (‘RPC’ for short) and 7/27 of Indian Arms Act (‘I.A. Act’ for short), vide which respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the charges.

2. At the very outset, it is made clear that in view of the statement made by Mr. V. Bakshi, the then Dy. AG, who had appeared on behalf appellant, the State has preferred the instant appeal against respondent No.1 only as is evident from order passed by this Court on 16.03.2012. Registry to update the cause title.

3. The case of the prosecution, shorn of irrelevant details, is that on 10.02.2005, Hoshiar Singh-Numberdar S/o Duni Chand R/o Dungru, Tehsil Doda, lodged a written report in Police Station Doda, inter alia, alleging that he received an information at Prem Nagar, that some unknown armed men had opened indiscriminate firing on Mohd. Yousaf S/o Noora R/o Shoonsh and his companion, as a result whereof said Mohd. Yousuf died on the spot and his companion was injured. On the receipt of this report, FIR No.19/2005 for offences under Sections 302/307 RPC and 7/27 I.A. Act came to be registered and investigation came into vogue.

4. During investigation, the investigating officer completed the requisite legal formalities including the preparation of site plan. The place of occurrence was photographed through Crime Branch, dead body of Mohd. Yousuf was taken into custody and shifted to the hospital for post mortem. Injury Form of the injured Gh. Qadir S/o Mohd. Ramzan R/o Drubeel Kishtwar was prepared, and he was shifted to the District Hospital Doda. After post mortem of the deceased, the dead body was handed over to his legal heirs for last rites against proper receipt. Investigating officer recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

5. It surfaced during investigation that while deceased Mohd. Yousuf and injured Gh. Qadir were on their way to Prem Nagar from village Dongru, they came across three militants namely Hafizullah S/o Abdul Aziz Peer R/o Dhara (respondent herein), Kuldeep Kumar S/o Neel Kanth R/o Zihand Dhara, and Javed Ahmed S/o Mohd. Assadullah R/o Dhara, Tehsil Doda. One of the militants, accused Hafiz Ullah armed with AK 47 rifle opened indiscriminate firing on both of them on the premise that they were informers of the security forces and were required to be punished. As a result Mohd. Yousuf died on the spot. In the meantime, other militants/accused Nos.2 & 3 (since absconding) also opened fire and Ghulam Qadir sustained serious injuries and fell unconscious on the spot. Having thought that both of them had died, militants/accused fled away. The investigating officer concluded that accused persons belonging to a banned militant outfit Hizab-ul-Mujahidin, had killed the deceased and inflicted serious injuries to Ghulam Qadir. Accordingly, final report was presented in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda in the presence of accused Hafiz Ullah, where from it was committed to the learned trial Court and since rest of the accused persons were absconding after the commission of the crime, they were proceeded against under Section 512 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.08.2005.

6. The respondent was charged by the trial court for the alleged offences under Sections 302/307 RPC and 7/27 I.A. Act, whereby he pleaded innocence and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution was directed to lead evidence and prosecution has examined nine witnesses. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C., whereby he denied the incriminating evidence against him and preferred to lead defence evidence. Accused also examined a couple of witnesses