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 judgment of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory) is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 24th June, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda [“the trial Court”] in file No.21/Sessions titled State v. Adul Hamid and others, whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302, 307, 34 RPC.

2. Briefly put, the case set up by the prosecution for trial against the respondents-accused was that on 24th August, 2004, the police of Police Station, Gandoh received a wireless message from Incharge Police Post, Kahara that some unknown militants had hurled an RPG on police picket with a view to killing CRPF personnel. The RPG, however, missed the target and blasted in the house of one Mohd. Hanief due to which his two children, namely, Nassra Banu and Baber aged 1 1/2 years and 9 years respectively were injured and succumbed to the injuries on spot and that the wife of Mohd. Hanief, namely Shahida Begum was seriously injured and taken to Thathri hospital for treatment. It was reported that Mohd. Hanief, too, was injured in the incident and was under treatment at Kahara.

3. On the basis of this information, case FIR No.80/2004 for offences under Sections 302, 307, 34, 109 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act was registered in Police Station, Gandoh and the investigation taken up by Sub-Inspector Manjit Singh Incharge Police Post. He visited the site, prepared the site plan, got the post-mortem on the dead bodies conducted and handed over the same to the heirs against proper receipt for performance of last rites. The Investigating Officer also recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and injury form of the injured were filled up. Later, investigation was handed over to one Irfan Wani, Sub-Inspector, who, too, visited the spot and after enquiry recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, case was found proved against the respondents-accused and, accordingly, Final Report was laid before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record and hearing the prosecution and the accused-respondents, charged all the accused for offences under Section 302, 307, 34 and 109 RPC. All the respondents-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution led its evidence and examined all the cited prosecution witnesses except PW-19. On the closure of the evidence by the prosecution, incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against the respondents-accused were put to them, which all of them denied as false allegations. The trial Court heard the arguments under Section 273 Cr.P.C. and did not find it a case for acquittal at that stage. Option was given to the respondents-accused to lead their evidence in defence but they declined to do so.

5. The trial Court considered the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge against the respondents-accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Vide order and judgment dated 24.06.2010, impugned in this appeal, trial Court acquitted all the respondents-accused of the charges framed against them. It is this order/judgment of acquittal, appellant is aggrieved of and has called in question on various grounds.

6. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG appearing for the appellant, submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and has landed in error in not believing a cogent and very convincing evidence that had come on record in the shape of testimonies of PW-5, Mohd. Hanief and PW-6, Shahida Begum and PW-15 Shams-ud-Din. He submits that the aforesaid three witnesses were the eye witnesses to the commission of offence and had disclosed unequivocally the involvement of the respondents-accused in the commission of offence. The witnesses in their testimonies not only identified the respondents-accu