Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.
State of J&K - Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar and others – Respondents
CRAA No. 105 of 2012
Decided On : 14-08-2023
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Section 304 RPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 304 RPC - The court discussed the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense. It highlighted the lack of reliable and consistent evidence to convict the respondents under Section 304 Part II IPC. The court also emphasized the discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the lack of convincing medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case. The judgment confirmed the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-State appealed against the judgment of the trial Court, which acquitted the respondents Mukesh Kumar and Anil Kumar of the charge under Sections 304 Part-II/34 RPC. The prosecution's case involved the murder of Gautam, and the evidence presented included witness statements, postmortem reports, and FSL reports.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized the lack of reliable and consistent evidence, discrepancies in witness statements, and the absence of convincing medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness statements, the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, and the interpretation of Section 304 RPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of reliable and consistent evidence, discrepancies in witness statements, and the absence of convincing medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case. It emphasized the prosecution's failure to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in File No. 27 dated 14.07.2012 was confirmed, as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellant-State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 14.07.2012 of learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (for brevity ‘trial Court’) in File No. 207 by which the respondents Mukesh Kumar and Anil Kumar were acquitted of the charge under Sections 304 Part-II/34 RPC.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is as under:-
On 08.12.2006 Police Station, Janipur received information at 9:30 a.m. from reliable sources that dead body of one Gautam S/o Buta Ram R/o Mandlik Nagar, Jammu, who had been murdered by some unidentified person/persons by inflicting injuries on his head and other parts of his body, was lying in a room existing on a shed belonging to one Mohan Singh. On said information a case FIR No. 161/2006 for offence under Section 302 RFC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, it was found that the body of the deceased-Gautam was already shifted to the CMC, Jammu. After postmortem body of the deceased was taken into the custody and seizure memo was prepared. The Police visited the spot, where body of the decease Gautam was found lying and the site plan of the place of recovery of dead body was prepared, blood stained clothes of the deceased-Gautam were seized and the FSL team was called to examine the spot. After recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C it came to the fore that deceased and accused persons were having prior acquaintance with each other, but after some time, relations between them turned sour. On 07-12-2006 at 7.00 p.m. the deceased in the company of PWs Naresh Kumar and Shanker, later Chowlddar of PW Mohan Lai were going towards Toph Bridge and when they reached at cremation ground near PHE office, deceased had confrontation with the accused persons who were also present there which turned into a fist fight, PWs Naresh Kumar and Shanker tried to intervene, but without any success. It is further alleged that during the scuffle deceased and accused came near a canal and in the process of administering beating to the deceased, both the accused pushed the deceased towards the canal. The deceased could not control himself and fell in the canal with his head downwards towards the water. PWs Naresh Kumar and Shanker along with accused brought out the deceased from the canal, who was unconscious and blood was oozing out from his head and nose. PW4 Naresh Kumar immediately left the spot in order to inform the family of the deceased. However, accused persons along with PW Shanker boarded on Auto No.JK02U/9681 of PW Partap Singh and put the deceased in the same and proceeded in the said Auto towards a lane near the plot of PW IO Mohan Singh at Mandlik Nagar in order to keep the deceased in the room of PW Shanker existing in the aforesaid plot. During investigation it came to fore that when it was found by the accused that body of the deceased got stiff and had died, accused persons along with PW Shanker left the spot leaving the body of the deceased-Gautam in the aforesaid room after locking the latch of the room from outside. The accused were taken into custody along with PW Shanker and during the course of their custodial interrogation, it was found that PW Shanker was not involved in the occurrence in any manner, as such, benefit under Section 169 Cr.P.C was given to him and he was released from custody. His statement was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C as a witness in the case. After receiving the post-mortem and FSL report and after completion of investigation, it was found that offence under section 302 RPC was not made out against the accused, rather they had committed offence under section 304 RPC, so offence under section 302 RPC was dropped and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed in the Court of law and after the conclusion of the trial the same has resulted in the impugned judgment.
3. Mr. P. D. Singh, learned Dy.AG while assailing the impugned judgment urged that the trial Court has passed an ord
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which was not achieved in this case.
The court applied exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC to determine the appropriate charges and convictions based on the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
Point if Law: Merely because appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with judgment of acquittal is not justified if vie....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and motive in murder cases; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
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
