In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be conclusively proven, leaving no gaps in the evidence chain for a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. The appellant-State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 22.11.2011 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges for offence under Section 302 RPC arising out of FIR No.61/2005 registered with Police Station, Kalakote, Rajouri.

2. It appears that on 20.12.2005 PW-3 Ram Krishan lodged a verbal report that deceased Raja Ram, who had gone to Tehsil Office, Kalakote on 19.12.2005 to deposit the land revenue, did not return to his home. It was further reported that on 20.12.2005, during search of the deceased, it was noticed that his dead body was lying in a deserted Nallah. The informant suspected that someone had inflicted fatal injuries upon the deceased and left his dead body at a deserted place. FIR No. 61/2005 for offence under Section 302 RPC came to be registered with Police Station, Kalakote and investigation of the case was started. During investigation of the case, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem, the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded, on the basis of disclosure made by the respondent under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the weapon of offence(two blood stained stones) was recovered, the blood sustained clothes of the deceased were seized, blood sample of the deceased was also seized and the report of the FSL was procured.

3. After investigation of the case, it was found that there was previous enmity between the deceased and the respondent/accused on account of a land dispute and on the day of the occurrence, the respondent/accused waited at village Kurlian for the deceased to come back from Tehsil Office. While the deceased was proceeding towards the house of one of his relatives, the respondent/accused followed him and attacked him with stones at an isolated place. It was also found that, after committing murder of the deceased, the respondent/accused removed dead body of the deceased to another place and crushed his arms with stones repeatedly leaving his left hand amputated. It was further found that the respondent/accused crushed head of the deceased with stones. Accordingly, offence under Section 302 RPC was found established against the respondent/accused and the charge-sheet was laid before the trial Court.

4. Vide order dated 11.03.2006, the learned trial Court framed charge for offence under Section 302 RPC against the respondent/accused and his plea was recorded. The respondent denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was directed to produce evidence in support of its case. As many as (36) witnesses have been cited in the challan, out of which,(29) witnesses were examined by the prosecution during trial of the case. After completion of trial of the case, the statement of the respondent under Section 342 of J&K Cr.P.C was recorded in which he claimed that a false case has been foisted upon him and that investigation of the case has not been conducted properly. The respondent did not enter his defence and he did not lead any evidence.

5. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent/accused is not proved. In fact, the trial Court has observed that there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the respondent/accused with the alleged crime.

6. The appellant/State has called in question the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court on the ground that it has not appreciated the law and the facts properly. It has been contended that the learned trial Court has taken a hyper-technical approach and ignored direct and circumstantial evidence on record.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, grounds of challenge and the trial Court record including the evidence led by the prosecution.

8. The charge against the respo