The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

Crl LP(D) 70/2023

This is an application seeking leave of this Court to file acquittal appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 31.07.2023 passed by a learned Sessions Judge (PDJ), Udhampur.

For the reasons recorded therein, the application is allowed and the leave is granted to file the acquittal appeal.

Crl A(AD) No. 11/2024

1. Admit. Post admit notice waived by Mr. Pankaj Dubey learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.

2. By consent of both learned counsel, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. UT of Jammu and Kashmir is in appeal against an order and judgment of acquittal dated 31.07.2023 passed by a learned Sessions Judge (PDJ), Udhampur [“the trial Court”] in file No. 164/Sessions titled "UT of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Shanker Dass whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 307/506 RPC and 30 of Arms Act.

4. Briefly put, the prosecution story as projected in the final report submitted before the trial Court, is that on 15.01.2016, a written report was lodged by PW Shankutla Devi along with her brother PW Darshan Kumar in the Police Station, Pancheri alleging therein that a day before at 8 pm when PW Shankuntla Devi was going to her parental house at Panjar Morha Thatley,she missed the Bus. She called her brother PW Darshan Kumar to take her along. PW Darshan Kumar came on the road to take PW Shakuntla Kumar along with him to her parental home. When she along with her brother were walking on the road, the respondent Shanker Dass, Sat Pal, Gorkhu and Darshan Kumar, all residents of Panjar Morha Ketley put torch light on them from their house and thereafter fired with a country made rifle. It was further alleged that the shot hit one tree and the complainant PW Shakuntla Devi and her brother had a narrow escape. It was stated by the complainant PW Shankuntla Devi that they were fired upon because of an old enmity. On the basis of the aforesaid written report against the afore-named four persons, FIR No. 4/2016 for offences under Sections 307/506 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act was registered in the concerned Police Station and investigation set in motion.

5. During investigation, the I.O visited the spot, prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, seized the rifle and its licence and recorded the statements of witnesses under Sections 161 Cr.PC. The statements of some of the witnesses were also recorded under Section 164-A CrPC in the Court. On completion of investigation, the challan was laid before the trial Court only against the respondent. Vide order dated 28.04.2016, the respondent was charged with the commission of offences under Sections 307/506 RPC and 30 of Arms Act. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. With a view to prove the charges against the respondent, the prosecution examined (11) witnesses. PWs 9 and 11 were given up by the prosecution, whereas statements of PWs 10 and 12 were not recorded in the Court.

7. The trial Court considered the entire matter in light of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution in support of its case and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt by leading any cogent and trustworthy evidence. The trial Court took note of the fact that all the four eye witnesses cited by the prosecution were relatives of the complainant and the interested witnesses and that their testimony was full of contradictions. The trial Court also found that there was no evidence led by the prosecution to demonstrate that it was the respondent alone who had fired the gun shot. The trial Court also found that there was no attempt made by the I.O to collect the relevant evidence i.e the bullet fired from the gun and the empty cartridge discharged by it. As a matter of fact, the trial Court found that there was no evidence on record to prove that the gun used in the occurrence was sealed on spot. Finding so many discrepancies