JUDGMENT :

(Sanjeev Kumar, J.) :

1. The erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory) is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.02.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in File No. 94/Session titled 'State vs. Sham Lal', whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charges under sections 302 RPC read with Section 4 /25 ARMS ACT .

2. As per the prosecution story, PW Sodagar Mal, brother of respondent/accused lodged a verbal report in the Police Station, Bishnah on 03.03.2004 at 7.45 am alleging that the respondent had murdered his wife Mst. Asha Rani and daughter Ms. Rajni Kumari on the intervening night of 2nd/3rd of March, 2004 with a sharp edged weapon. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 27/2004 was registered in Police Station, Bishnah. The Investigating Officer started investigation in the case, prepared site plan, seizure memo of articles seized on the spot, recorded disclosure statement of the respondent and made certain discoveries. The dead bodies were taken possession of and their post mortem got conducted. Apart from sending requisite samples for FSL examination, photographs of the dead bodies were taken and the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C were also recorded. As per the prosecution story, the occurrence is stated to have taken place in the house of respondent which is situate at Amir Nagar Dabbar, Bishnah.

3. On completion of the investigation and requisite formalities, challan was presented against the respondent under Section 302 RPC read with Section 4 /25 ARMS ACT in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah who committed the same to the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu as the offence under Section 302 RPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The case came to be transferred by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu to the trial Court for trial under law. The charges were framed against the respondent under Section 302 RPC read with Section 4 /25 ARMS ACT . Since the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, as such, the prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence in support of its case. With a view to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined PW- 1 Pritam Singh, PW-2 Puran Singh, PW-3 Sodagar Mal, PW-4 Hans Raj, PW-5 Ram Lla, PW-6 Krishan Lal, PW-7 Patwari Anwar Syeed, PW-8 Gopal Ram, PW-9 Mohinder Lal, PW-10 Daleep Singh, PW-11 Sunil Kumar, PW-12 Sumitri Devi, PW-13 Sanjay Kumar, PW-14 Dr. Kamal Kant Gupta, PW-15 Dr. Jaspal Singh, PW-16 Karan Singh, PW-17 Dr. Rekha Parihar, PW-18 Mool Raj and PW-19 Bodh Raj as witnesses.

4. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances, appearing in the prosecution evidence, were put to the respondent and his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C was recorded. The respondent/accused opted not to adduce any evidence in defence.

5. The trial Court, after hearing both the sides and, having regard to the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him and he was set free while recording the judgment of acquittal. It is this judgment of acquittal which is assailed by the appellant on multiple grounds.

6. It is argued by Mr. Pawan Dev Singh learned Dy. AG appearing for the appellant that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has, by leading cogent evidence, successfully proved the charge against the respon