The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of corroborative evidence in relation to the material particulars of the testimony of an approver and the principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty, which is strengthened by the acquittal by the trial Court.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The State of Jammu & Kashmir (now UT of J&K) is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu [‘the trial Court”] in file No.3/Sessions titled State v. Ichapal Singh and another, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section 302 RPC.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG appearing for the respondents, we deem it appropriate to take note of the prosecution story.

3. Prosecution story in brief goes like this that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, on the intervening night of 1st/2nd June, 1999, the respondents arrested deceased-Mohd. Ayub Dar along with his brother-Shabir Ahmed Dar. Both were kept in police custody. Mohd. Ayub Dar was interrogated and tortured to death. The further allegation is that with a view to hide the crime, respondent-Ichapal Singh fired gunshots on the dead body of deceased-Mohd. Ayub Dar and gave it a colour of an encounter. Respondent-Ichapal Singh even fired a shot at his leg to show that he too was injured in the encounter. FIR No.34/1999 was registered at Police Station, Charar-e-Sharief under Section 307 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. There is further allegation that Waris Shah helped the respondents to cover up the crime committed by them by filing the aforementioned false FIR.

4. It seems that on the intervention made by the Human Rights Commission and publicity of the incident in local newspapers, FIR No.77/2003 under Section 302 RPC against the respondents and said Waris Shah was registered with the Crime Branch, Srinagar. The investigation was conducted by the Crime Branch and the case was held proved against the respondents herein and Waris Shah. However, later on Waris Shah turned approver and became a prosecution witness.

5. The trial Court charged the respondents for commission of offence under Section 302 RPC. The respondents denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, with a view to proving its case, examined PW-1 Waris Shah, PW-2 Ghulam Nabi Sheikh, PW-3 Nazir Ahmed Dar, PW-4 Gulam Mohd. Dar, PW-5 Bashir Ahmed Dar , PW-6 Dr. Bashir Ahmed Mir, PW-7 Ghulam Geelani Bhat, PW-8 Ghulam Ahmed Dar, PW-9 Javed Iqbal Matoo, PW-10 Nissar Hussain and PW-11 Shabir Ahmed Dar. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the respondents and their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The respondents denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution but opted not to lead any evidence in defence. The trial Court considered the rival contentions and evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge against the respondents for the offence under Section 302 RPC. As a result, the trial Court acquitted both the respondents of the charge under Section 302 RPC vide judgment of acquittal recorded on 10.04.2015.

6. It is this judgment of the trial Court which is assailed before us by the appellant on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in correct perspective and has given too much weightage to minor contradictions appearing in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The trial Court was influenced by the only fact that the real brother of the deceased, namely, Shabir Ahmad Dar-PW-11, who was allegedly present when the deceased was tortured to death did not support the prosecution version.

7. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG argues that the trial Court ought to have considered other evidence on record, particularly, statement of the approver, namely Waris Shah corroborated by other evidence, in particular, medical evidence. She, therefore, submits that the evidence on record was sufficient to connect both the respondents with the commission of murder of the deceased Mohd. Ayub Dar.

8. Per contra, Mr. Anil Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the respond