Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, MOHAN LAL, JJ.
State of Jammu and Kashmir, Through P/S Nowabad – Appellant
Versus
Raju Singh, alias Mangi S/o. Niranjan Singh – Respondent
CRAA No. 235 Of 2014
Decided On : 03-10-2023
Murder - Sections 302/452/34 RPC, 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act - The prosecution alleged that the respondent, along with other accused, had attacked and killed a person. The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent. The court considered the evidence and material on record, including witness statements and the recovery of the weapon of offence. The court also noted the contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and the unreliability of the key witness's testimony. The court further observed that the investigating officer could not be produced in court due to illness. Based on these reasons, the trial court acquitted the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was acquitted of charges under Sections 302/452/34 RPC, 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act by the trial court. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, along with other accused, had attacked and killed a person. The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court considered the evidence and material on record and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that most of the witnesses either turned hostile or made contradictory statements. The court also found that the testimony of the key witness was not reliable due to previous enmity and litigation with the respondent's family. The court further observed that the investigating officer could not be produced in court due to illness, which could have explained some contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. Based on these reasons, the trial court acquitted the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court, hearing an appeal against acquittal, cannot take a different view from the trial court if the evidence on record is insufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. The principle of presumption of innocence and the parameters of interference with an order of acquittal in appeal were considered. The appellate court concurred with the trial court's view and dismissed the appeal.
Result: The appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir against the respondent's acquittal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjeev Kumar, J.)
1. This appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir (now the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir) is directed against judgment dated 28.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [“the trial court”] in file No. 53/Challan titled “State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Raju Singh alias Mangii” whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondent of offence under Sections 302/452/34 RPC, 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act.
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG to assail the judgment impugned, we deem it appropriate to notice briefly the prosecution story.
3. On 1st September, 2001 at about 6:20 P.M. Police Station, Talab Tillo received an information that some persons, namely, (1) Raju Singh, (2) Varinder Kumar, (3) Raman Kumar and (4) Arun Kumar along with other accused persons, after hatching criminal conspiracy and with common intention to kill, had attacked a person inside the shop of one Bansi Lal at Gole Pulli, Jammu and severally injured him. It was reported to the Police that respondent, namely, Raju Singh had fired with pistol whereas other accused persons had given blows to the said person with deadly sharp edged weapons and that the injured was lying in the pool of blood. This information was transmitted by the Police Post, Talab Tillo to Police Station, Nowabad and as a consequence whereof a case FIR No. 152/2001 for offence under Sections 307/148/149 RPC, 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act was registered in the Police Station, Nowabad. Investigation was entrusted to incharge Police Station, Talab Tillo.
4. The I.O. rushed to the spot and got the injured lifted from inside the shop of Bansi Lal and took him to hospital through flying squad for treatment. The injured was admitted in hospital vide MLC No. 1382 dated 01.09.2001 in the emergency ward. The I.O. prepared the docket for statement of injured but the Medical Officer attending the injured wrote on the docket that the injured was dead. The I.O. completed the requisite formalities, recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and got the post-mortem conducted on the deceased etc etc.
5. The I.O. found the case proved against two accused i.e. respondent, Raju Singh, and one Varinder Kumar alias Kaka, who as per the investigation conducted, had committed the murder of the deceased. Challan was laid before the trial court. The trial court after hearing prosecution and defence, framed the charges against the respondent herein and accused Varinder Kumar for commission of offence under Section 302/452/34 RPC read with Sections 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the statements of witnesses were recorded. While the trial was going on, the accused Varinder Kumar absconded and was proceeded under Section 512 Cr.P.C.
6. With a view to sustain the charge against the respondent, the prosecution produced PW Naveen Kumar, PW Harbans Gupta, PW Arun Kumar, PW Mukesh Gupta, PW Munish Kumar, PW Ranjeet Singh, PW Sidharth Sharma, PW Ajay Bali, PW Bua Ditta, PW Krishan Lal, PW Sarandeep Singh, PW Karan Singh, PW Arun Kumar, PW S.H. Bhukari, PW Bindra Ram, PW Shiv Kumar, PW Leela Devi, PW Jagdish Raj, PW Bansi Lal, PW Madan Gopal, PW Barkati Begum, PW Shafiq Ahmed, PW Janak Singh, PW Ram Pal, PW Vijay Kumar, PW Kirpal Singh, PW Tarsem Raj, PW Vishal Sharma, PW Sukhbir Singh, PW Harvinder Singh, PW Suresh Kumar, PW Rattan Lal, PW Parshotam Kumar Mengi (Dy. SP), PW Sukh Dev Singh SGC, PW Dr. Sanjay Bhat, PW Bashir Massiah, PW Manjeet Singh, PW Vinay Gupta and PW Daleep Kumar as witnesses.
7. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence were put to the respondent and his statement under Section 342 Cr. P.C was recorded. The respondent denied all the incriminating material and pleaded innocence. He, however, produced DW Niranjan Singh as his sole defence witness.
8. The matter was considered by the trial
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court cannot take a different view from the trial court if the evidence on record is insufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, and the limited scope of interference with....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.
The lack of sufficient circumstantial evidence and failure to establish conspiracy precludes finding of guilt against the respondent.
An appellate court has the authority to reverse a trial court's acquittal if the judgment is perverse, ensuring substantial evidence confirms guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases in....
The judgment establishes that a conviction in criminal cases requires reliable and corroborative evidence, and the credibility of eyewitnesses is crucial in determining the outcome of the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
