Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, JAVED IQBAL WANI, JJ.
State of J&K – Appellant
Versus
Shalinder Singh and Ors. - Respondents
CRAA No. 60 of 2012
Decided on : 01-08-2023
Criminal Acquittal Appeal - Circumstantial Evidence - Evidence Act 1872, Section 27 - Mohd. Naushad Vs. State - Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) - Esher Singh v. State of A.P. - State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Gulzarilal - Failure to Prove Chain of Events
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution charged 10 accused persons for various offenses including murder and conspiracy. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and recovery of weapons. However, the witnesses turned hostile and the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court acquitted the accused as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate court upheld the acquittal, citing the well-established principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the guilt must be proved beyond doubt and every other reasonable hypothesis of guilt must be excluded.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to establish the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete and unbreakable chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlighted the legal principles related to circumstantial evidence, including the requirements for proving conspiracy and the importance of establishing motive.
Final Decision: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events and motive, and therefore upheld the acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
Javed Iqbal, J.
1. The instant criminal acquittal appeal has been filed by the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (now the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir) against the judgment dated 25.02.2012 (hereinafter for short the impugned judgment) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur, (hereinafter for short the trial Court) in file No. 05/Sessions in case titled as “State Vs. Shalinder Singh and Ors.” arising out of FIR No. 309/2008 of Police Station Udhampur for offences under Sections 302/120-B/212 RPC, 3/25 & 4/25 Arms Act, acquitting the accused respondents herein facing trial while directing warrants issued against the absconding accused persons to remain in force.
2. Brief Facts
Upon completion of the investigation in FIR No 309/2008 supra the prosecution presented challan for commission of offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 212 RPC and 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act against 10 accused persons before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Udhampur on 17.03.2009. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Udhampur vide order dated 17.03.2009 committed the said challan for trial to the learned Principal Sessions Judge Udhampur who transferred the same to the learned Additional Sessions Judge Udhampur (hereinafter for short ‘the trial Court’) for trial.
Challan was presented in presence of the respondents and one Mohd Shabir Ahmad who was also an accused and the other accused persons who were absconding at the time of presentation of challan and were proceeded against under Section 512 CrPC and a general arrest of warrant was issued against them and in execution of such warrant accused Onkar Singh was arrested whereas other accused persons were absconding till the conclusion of the trial. Particulars of all the accused persons and the offences for which they were charged for brevity and convenience are provided hereunder: -
(i) Shalinder Singh, (A1) charged under Sections 302/120-B RPC read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. (ii) Pawam Kumar (A2) charged under Sections 302/120-B RPC read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. (iii) Som Raj (A3) charged under Sections 302/212 RPC read with Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act. (iv) Mohd Shabir, (A4) charged under Section 302/212 RPC. (v) Onkar Singh, (A5) charged under Sections 302/120-B RPC.
The accused persons namely Mohd Shabir Ahmad, Onkar Singh A4 and A5 were acquitted under Sections 273 Cr.PC on 17.04.2012 by the trial Court.
3. Case Setup by the Prosecution
As per the challan, on 30.12.2008 at about 1:00 pm outside shop of PW Jang Bahadur, opposite ICCI Bank Udhampur, the accused A1 to A3 giving effect to the criminal conspiracy hatched by all the accused persons attacked one Varinder Singh @ Vicky (hereinafter for short the deceased) with deadly weapons causing serious injury and thereafter fled away and the said injured Vicky passed away while being shifted to the hospital. The accused persons A1 & A2 attacked the deceased with country made pistols whereas, accused A3 attacked the deceased with a Toka.
During the course of investigation the police arrested 5 accused persons collected evidence, recovered weapons of offences on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused person and upon conclusion of the investigation presented the challan against the accused persons.
The charges under relevant sections came to be framed on 04.06.2009 by the trial Court to which accused A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring home the charges against the accused A1 to A3, the prosecution besides examining 55 witnesses cited in the challan, examined two more witnesses who were permitted to be called and examined by the trial Court under Section 540 CrPC.
4. The instant criminal acquittal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment on multiple grounds and in order to advert to the said grounds, in the first instance the prosecution evidence led before the trial court would be adverted to here under:
AI
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbreakable chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt and cannot rely solely on the admissions made by the accused. Thorough investigation and the establishment of crucial links in the chain o....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
Conviction on circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain linking accused to crime; absence of ballistic report connecting recovered pistol to gunshot, no firing eyewitness, and unreliab....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, failing which the accu....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that excludes any reasonable doubt of the accused's innocence.
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
