The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, and the presumption of innocence remains strong in acquittals.

JUDGMENT :

Per Oswal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.11.2008, recorded by the court of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (for short "the Trial Court‟), whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under Section 302 RPC read with Section 30 Arms Act .

2. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence, more particularly the statements made by the Lieutenant Colonel K. K. Punn, who had categorically stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the weapon of offence was in the hands of the respondent. Learned AAG has further argued that the statement of Dr. Karamveer Singh clearly proves that the injuries were not self-inflicted and further, that FSL expert S. H. Bukhari has clearly stated in the crime scene that range of fire was four to five feet from the muzzle of the carbine. He has further laid stress that the prosecution had proved the motive also on part of the respondent to commit heinous offence of murder of his wife, but the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has acquitted the respondent erroneously.

3. Per contra, Mr. Mohd. Aslam Goni, learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that the opinion formed by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondent cannot be termed as perverse and interference with the judgment of acquittal is not warranted, even if, on the same set of evidence the other view is also possible. He laid much stress on the statement made by the defence witness Dr. Rohit Koul, Scientific officer of FSL Jammu who accompanied the PW S. H. Bukhari but was not cited by the Investigating Officer as witness to demonstrate that there was blackening and tattooing of skin around the bullet marks on the body of the deceased, which is possible only when the victim is in close contact with the weapon at the time of suffering the gun-shot. He has further relied upon the statement of DW Dr. Bhupesh Khajuria, HOD, Forensic Medicine to dispute the statement of Dr. K. V. Singh, who had stated that the distance of the fire could have been about four to five feet from muzzle of the firearm.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record Prosecution Case:

5. Briefly stated, the case projected by the prosecution is that Commanding Officer, Aman Singh submitted an application (EXPW-AS) dated 06.11.2003 with the SHO, Police Station, Samba with request to register an FIR and in the application it was stated that Ms. Sarita Rai, wife of the respondent expired at 14.45 hours on 06.11.2003 due to gunshot wound at the quarter of the respondent situated at Samba. It was further stated in the application that body of the deceased was shifted to 171 Military Hospital at 15.10 hours by the respondent in his own vehicle and body was lying in the hospital. On receipt of this application, the inquest proceedings in terms of Section 174 Cr. P.C. were initiated. One carbine, two magazines with 37 rounds of 9 mm, 3 empty shells and the bolt were seized. FSL team was deputed, and fingerprints were lifted from the carbine by the team. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. The inquest proceedings resulted in the registration of FIR No. 186/2003 under Section 302 RPC on 19.11.2003. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid before the court of learned JMIC (Sub-Judge), Samba on 30.12.2003 against the respondent for commission of offences under Section 302 RPC and Section 30 Arms Act . The charge-sheet was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, as the Army Authorities decided not to hold trial of the respondent. Vide order dated 19.02.2004, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu transferred the charge-sheet to the learned trial court. The respondent was charged for commission of offences unde