Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, PUNEET GUPTA, JJ.
State of J&K – Petitioner
Versus
Sher Singh and Others – Respondents
CRAA No. 119 of 2010
Decided On : 23-12-2022
ACQUITTAL - Murder and Conspiracy - Sections 302, 452, 149, 120-B RPC; Sections 4/25 Arms Act - The court discussed the interpretation of the relevant sections of the RPC and the Arms Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence for conviction. The court found that the prosecution's case relied heavily on a single witness whose credibility was undermined by the hostility of other witnesses and contradictions in the evidence. The court concluded that the trial court's acquittal was justified due to the lack of reliable evidence against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case arose from an incident on 16.09.2003, where Vipan Kumar Luthra reported an armed robbery and assault at his jewelry shop, resulting in the death of his servant, Raj Kumar. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to commit murder and robbery, leading to charges under various sections of the RPC and the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's key eyewitness, Constable Mohd. Salim, did not provide credible evidence linking the accused to the crime. Most other witnesses turned hostile, and the evidence presented was insufficient to support the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court's decision to acquit was upheld as reasonable and justified.
Issues: Whether the trial court misappreciated the evidence and whether the acquittal of the respondents was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a conviction can only be based on trustworthy evidence, and in this case, the lack of corroborating witnesses and the contradictions in the prosecution's evidence led to the conclusion that the trial court's acquittal was appropriate.
Final Decision: The appeal against the acquittal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
1. This acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 01.07.2010 passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under sections 302, 452, 149, 120-B RPC and 4/25 Arms Act.
2. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the learned trial court mis-appreciated the evidence despite the fact that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt, but still the learned trial court acquitted the respondents.
3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG vehemently argued that PW-1 Constable Mohd Salim has supported the prosecution story in toto, but despite that the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents by wrongly appreciating the evidence.
4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Anand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that all the projected eye witnesses except PW-1, Constable Mohd. Salim, have been turned hostile and further that PW-Mohd Salim is in fact not an eye witness and as such, the learned trial court was correct in acquitting the respondents.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. The brief case of the prosecution is that one Vipan Kumar Luthra S/o Ved Luthra R/o Mohalla Malhotra, Pir Mitha, Jammu lodged an oral report at Police Station, Pir Mitha in an injured condition on 16.09.2003, wherein he stated that at about 7.00 PM, while he and his servant were working in his Jewellery Shop at Pir Mitha, Jammu, three unknown persons having Kirch in their hands entered his shop and threatened to kill him and his servant and asked them to handover all the ornaments and cash to them. He and his servant made hue and cry and the said persons attacked him as well as his servant with Kirch. He suffered an injury on the finger of his left hand from the blow, while he tried to avert the blow. In the meantime, some persons came on spot and they tried to catch them. One accused inflicted blows with Kirch on the chest of Raj Kumar @ Sonu, who was working as servant in the jewellery shop of Ashwani Kumar S/o Tarsem Lal at Pir Mitha. Raj Kumar sustained serious injuries and fell down. The other accused in the meantime fled away from the spot. The accused who made murderous assault on Raj Kumar was caught by the people, who disclosed his name as Sher Singh S/o Kartar Singh and the names of other accused as Ashok Kumar Parbhat Singh, Rashpal Singh of Udhampur.
7. On receipt of this oral report, FIR bearing No. 39/2010 under Sections 307/452/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act was registered at Police Station Pir Mitha. The Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector-Gandharb Singh visited the spot and prepared the site plan, collected the sample of plain soil and blood stained soil. Blood stained Kirch was also seized and statements of the witnesses were also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. As Raj Kumar succumbed to the injuries during his treatment, so offence under section 302 RPC was also added. The Investigating Officer during investigation found that the complainant was having enmity with accused Rajesh Kumar, who hatched a conspiracy with other accused in order to take revenge with the complainant. Pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by the accused, it was decided that these accused persons would commit murder of Vipan Kumar, who was working at Jewellery shop and would rob gold, silver and other articles lying in the shop. Rajesh Kumar assured Rashpal Singh that he would send Rs. 50,000/- at Udhampur. Thereafter, accused Rashpal Singh in the last week of August prepared Sher Singh, Ashok Singh, Parbhat Singh, Balwan Singh, Uttam Singh, Chamail Singh and Sonu, who were working as Pithus and Masseurs at Katra and brought them to Jammu. Rajesh Kumar met them at Jammu and provided them the weapons. They conducted the recce around the shop at Pir Mitha but could not enter the shop and they cam
The judgment establishes that a conviction in criminal cases requires reliable and corroborative evidence, and the credibility of eyewitnesses is crucial in determining the outcome of the case.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.
An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse or ignores material evidence. Conviction requires reliable, cogent evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable dou....
The prosecution must establish the presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence beyond doubt and prove the disclosure statements and recoveries to secure a conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
The acquittal of the accused is sustained as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the unreliability of witness testimonies and the significance of the presu....
The reluctance to interfere with acquittal unless the conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view.
The presumption of innocence remains paramount, and an acquittal can only be overturned if the trial court's findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
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
