The judgment emphasizes the fundamental legal principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, highlighting the prosecution's burden to establish the accused's guilt based on credible and convincing evidence.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.04.2019 delivered by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge for commission of offences under Sections 302/341 RPC in FIR No. 56/2015 of Police Station, Majalta.

2. The judgment has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence rightly and despite the fact that the prosecution had established the case against the respondent by adducing the documentary as well as oral evidence, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent erroneously.

3. Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG has vehemently argued that the wife and the brother of the deceased have deposed in a clear and cogent manner with regard to commission of offence by the respondent but despite that, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent.

4. Mr. Sandeep Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported its case. The statement of the wife and the brother of the deceased have rightly not been relied upon by the trial court and as such there is no infirmity and illegality in the judgment impugned, that may warrant interference by this court.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that one Madan Lal Verma (Brother of the deceased) submitted a written application with the Police Station, Majalta, stating therein that on 15.07.2015, his brother, namely, Naresh Verma was going towards the bus stand from his home. At about 02:00 PM, the accused-Surinder Kumar, due to enmity, stopped his brother and started beating him. In order to kill his brother, the accused forcefully banged the head of his brother on the road due to which, his brother suffered serious injury and he became unconscious. Some passersby took his brother to Primary Health Centre, Thial, from where, he was referred to Government Medical College, Jammu. The condition of his brother was very critical. On receipt of this application, FIR bearing No. 56 of 2015 for commission of offences under Section 307/341/323 RPC was registered and the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the injured succumbed to the injuries suffered by him on 05.08.2015 at DMC, Ludhiana. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the dead body was seized and post mortem was conducted. Due to death of the victim, offence under section 302 RPC was incorporated. During investigation, it was revealed that the victim-deceased had kept a tin sheet in his shop which was misplaced. He came to know that the tin sheet had been taken by the respondent. The victim-deceased went to the house of the accused-respondent and brought the tin sheet back. On 15.07.2015, when the victim was going to bus stand, Thial and reached near the shop of Ram Lal, he was intercepted by the accused-respondent at around 02:00 PM and due to enmity, the accused gave fist blows to the victim-deceased and then banged his head upon the road, as a result of which, he suffered head injury and became unconscious. During investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the respondent on 12.09.2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, who committed the same to the Sessions Court. The respondent was charged for the commission of offences under Sections 302/341 RPC on 06.10.2015 and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. All the 19 witnesses cited by the prosecution were examined. Incriminating evidence was put to the respondent and thereafter, the respondent also examined two witnesses in his defence. After hearing both the parties, the respondent was acquitted vide the judgment impugned.

7. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellant that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence, it is imp