The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on direct evidence, including confessional statements and the recovery of the crime weapon and ammunition, to establish the appellant's guilt for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and 307 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The court found no illegality or perversity in the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, and affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J

1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 13th June, 2020 and the order of sentence dated 30th of June, 2020 passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam (“Trial Court” in short) in a Criminal Challan No.10/Sessions titled as State of J&K through SHO, Police Station, Kulgam vs. Sanjay Kumar Rai, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and 307 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offences under Section 302 RPC and rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.30,000/- for offence under Section 307 RPC and, in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one year, and for setting aside the same.

2. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are challenged in this appeal, inter alia, on the following grounds:

i. That impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are against law and facts and bad in the eyes of law as there was no reliable evidence on record to establish guilt of appellant/accused with alleged crime inasmuch as evidence of prosecution witnesses was full of contradictions, exaggerations and improvements;

ii. That the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the murder of the deceased persons by the appellant and there was adequate delay in recording of the statement of material prosecution witnesses.

iii. That the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the appellant has been wrongly and falsely implicated in the commission of crime by the police. It is stated that reliance placed on various judgments of the Supreme Court in support of the contention of the appellant has not been at all considered by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and impugned order.

iv. That none of the witnesses who were present on the scene of occurrence in their statements recorded before the learned Trial Court has supported the prosecution version of the story and clearly deposed that there was complete dark in the room where the incident of firing occurred in which three persons lost their lives. When no one has personally witnessed the appellant carrying out the alleged assault, there exists, prima facie, doubt on the prosecution story and thus it is clearly established that appellant has been wrongly and falsely implicated in commission of the crime. In absence of any incriminating evidence against appellant, conviction and sentence of appellant is not legally permissible. This crucial aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked and brushed aside by the Trial Court while passing the judgment impugned.

v. That the evidence brought on record lacks the requisite gravity and does not come up to the accepted standards of proof. The delay in recording the statement of the witnesses, prosecution case without support from the expert/doctor, non-disclosure of the assailant in the first possible instance, non-recording of statement of injured by the investigating officer and darkness at the time of occurrence would make the prosecution case absolutely doubtful and dubious and paved way for a clean acquittal of the appellant. However, the learned Trial Court did not consider these crucial aspects of the matter and passed the judgment and order impugned which if evaluated on the touchstone of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different cases, is not legally sustainable.

vi. That assuming the case of the prosecution was believed, otherwise only an offence under Section 304 part second RPC could have been made against the appellant as the alleged act of the appellant is not result of any pre-concert from the appellant nor motive nor enmity was establ