The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for satisfactory evidence and the impact of contradictions in witness statements on the court's decision.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 15.09.2012 (for brevity ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua (for brevity ‘trial Court’) in case titled State versus Pannu Ram, for commission of offence under section 304 RPC, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted.

2. The impugned order is being challenged, precisely, on the following grounds:

(i) that the trial Court has mis-appreciated the law and evidence on record and has not appreciated the statements of prosecution witnesses in their totality.

(ii) that there is enough evidence on record which warrants the conviction and sentence of the respondent/accused for the commission of offence under Section 304 RPC.

(iii) that the appellant reserves the right to agitate the other points of law and additional grounds with the permission of the Court during the course of arguments.

3. The allegations against the respondent/accused as per prosecution case are that on 07.03.2005, the Police authorities of Police Station, Billawar, came to know from a reliable source that on 06.03.2005, the deceased, namely Mansa Ram S/o Beli Ram R/o Dharam Kote, Billawar, received head injury head by a gun shot fired negligently in the forest by some hunter. The injured was taken to the Jammu Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries in the way to hospital and was declared brought dead. A case for offence under Section 304-II RPC was registered at the Police Station, Billawar on 07.03.2005 and the investigation commenced. During investigation, it surfaced that on 06.03.2005, the accused-Pannu Ram, the deceased and others had gone for hunting into the forest Bhadou and in the forest, accused fired a gun shot that hit the deceased on his head, as a consequence, he sustained a fatal injury. On the completion of the investigation of the case, a charge sheet for the commission of an offence under Section 304 RPC was preferred in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua against the accused, who committed the case to Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kathua under Section 205-D of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused-respondent was charged for the commission of offence under Section 304-II RPC vide order dated 10.06.2005. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried and, accordingly, the prosecution was directed to produce evidence in support of its case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as also gone through the impugned judgment.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused-respondent and the prosecution evidence was closed on 29.1.2011 and the case was fixed for recording the statement of accused-respondent under Section 342, Cr.P.C. and the same was recorded on 31.1.2011 and 06.03.2011. The accused in his statement denied the occurrence and the case was posted for advancing arguments in terms of Section 273 Cr.P.C. on 01.02.2011 and 17.03.2011. The accused produced one witness, namely, Swaran Singh in his defence and on 29.1.2011 the defence evidence was closed and the case was posted for advancing arguments.

7. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides and going through the material on record passed the impugned judgment and the accused-respondent was acquitted. The operative part of the impugned judgment reads as under:

“Whatever be the cause of the death of the deceased, there is no satisfactory evidence on record from the appreciation of which it could be concluded that the accused had any connection with the commission of crime. The cause of the death of the deceased remains shrouded. Viewed in this context a judicial process cannot be issued in the matter as the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and stands released from his bail bond.

The role of the investigating officer in this case requires a special mention. He has not