The need for conclusive evidence and a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt, and the limited jurisdiction of the appellate court in interfering with findings of fact by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against judgment dated 29th October, 2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu ["the trial Court"]in file No. 90/Challan titled State of J&K v. Narinder Singh & Ors., whereby and whereunder respondent has been acquitted of the charges of Section 302/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act.

2. Before we proceed to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the appellant to assail the impugned judgment, we deem it appropriate to notice few material facts.

3. On 06.07.2007, Police Post, Sidhra received an information through reliable source that at Daggar Morh, Sidhra, one Auto Rickshaw bearing Regd. No. JK02M-3766 was lying abandoned on the side of road and in front whereof a dead body was lying in a pool of blood. It was also reported that the person whose dead body was lying on the spot had been allegedly murdered by some persons on the basis of past rivalry. The information was entered in the Daily Diary (Roznamcha) of the concerned Police Post and a copy thereof was forwarded to Police Station, Nagrota.

4. On receipt of this information, FIR No. 171/2007 was registered in the Police Station, Nagrota. Investigation was set in motion. During the course of investigation the dead body was taken in custody and sent for post-mortem and other evidence including bloodstained earth, simple earth and weapon of offence i.e. Toka were also seized from the place of occurrence. The auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. JK02M-3766 allegedly driven by the deceased at the time of occurrence and the motorcycle bearing Regd. No. JK02J-6563 allegedly used by the accused persons for chasing the deceased were also seized along with the documents. The motorcycle in question was seized on the basis of disclosure statement made by the respondent. The other two accused, namely Ram Pal and Garu Ram were absconding after committing the alleged crime and, therefore, they were proceeded under section 512 Cr.P.C.

5. The Investigating Officer after recording statements of the witnesses connected with the case and after completing the investigation and other required legal formalities presented Final Report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, which came to be transferred to the Court of Sub-Registrar (JMIC), Jammu for proceeding further in the matter. Learned Magistrate after completing all the requisite formalities committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, which was subsequently transferred to the trial Court.

6. Before the trial Court, prosecution examined PW-1 Sanjeev Kumar, PW-Ravi Kumar, PW-Rinku Kumar, PW-Parshotam Sharma, PW-Raki Gupta, PW-Rishi Kumar, PW-Devi Dass, PW-Subash Chander H.C. No. 551, PW-Ghulam Ali Patwari, PW-Angrez Singh and PW-Inspector Arjun Singh, Investigating Officer. The statements of PW-4 Hardeep Singh, PW-16 Anil Mangotra, PW-17 Mool Raj, Scientific Officer, PWQ-18 Sanjay Mengi and PW-19 Smt. Sangita Choudhary recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. were admitted and treated as substantive piece of evidence on the written request of the learned defence counsel during the trial vide order dated 09.09.2009.

7. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the respondent were put to him and his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C recorded. The respondent denied all the charges and the incriminating circumstances put to him but chose not to lead any defence evidence. The matter was considered by the trial Court in the light of evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the arguments addressed on both the sides. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record in the light of the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for the prosecution and defence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the respondent beyond any reasonable doubt and, thus, ordered acquittal of the respondent cha