Acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities affecting credibility.

JUDGMENT :

Puneet Gupta, J.

1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.10.2012 passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kishtwar, whereby the respondents-accused were acquitted of offence under Section 302 /34 RPC . It is submitted in the appeal that the trial court has passed the judgment against law and facts and has not appreciated the evidence that was produced by the prosecution. The trial court has ignored the important pieces of evidence while passing the judgment.

2. The respondents have appeared through counsel and contested the appeal.

3. The scanned record of the trial court is also before the court.

4. The respondents are referred to as accused in the appeal for the purposes of discussion.

5. The complainant PW-Des Raj lodged a verbal report with Police Station, Kishtwar on 30.12.2000 to the effect that his son Rajesh Kumar alias Raju aged 13 years was playing hide and seek with Madan Lal (accused) but thereafter his son did not return. This happened on 29.12.2000. The son of the complainant was not found despite search by the family and villagers and it was on 30.12.2000 at about 2/2.30 PM that on search the dead body of the victim was found buried in a cave near the village. The boy was murdered by slitting his throat with some sharp edged weapon. The complainant suspected that the accused had murdered his son as they were inimical towards the complainant due to land dispute. FIR No. 169/2000 was consequently registered with Police Station, Kishtwar under Section 302 RPC . The investigation resulted into presentation of challan against the accused under Section 302 /34 RPC . The charges were framed against the accused under Section 302 /34 RPC . Accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution produced number of witnesses in support of its case. A brief resume of the prosecution witnesses is required before the court can conclude if the judgment of the trial court can be sustained or not.

7. PW-1 Des Ram has deposed that he was informed by Des Raj and Sadhu Ram on 30.12.2000 when he was on duty at Nagbhtna that the son of the witness is missing from the last evening. The villagers were found searching for his son when he went back to the house. He observed the accused persons watching the situation very quietly. Gosawoon Ram and Jagat Ram had called and PW-Jagat Ram informed that dead body was lying in the cave. He along with chowkidar lodged written report with the Police Station. EXPW-1 is the FIR which bears the signature of the witness. The police retrieved the body and seized the same. The other seizures also took place on spot. The accused-Bid Lal disclosed during investigation that the weapon of offence has been hidden by him and the police seized the axe which was taken out by Bid Lal. Seizure memo is exhibited as EXPW-K/1. The witness has identified the axe in the court. In cross-examination, the witness has stated that Jagat Ram is his brother-in-law who along with chowkidar PW-Prem Nath and PW-Prem Nath S/o Sunder also searched for the accused. He was not informed that anyone had witnessed the murder of his son. Except the accused all the villagers were present when police came on spot. The witness has also stated that the accused had watched secretly the situation during the search operation. He was suspicious of the accused as they had fled away from the area. He was informed by his wife that the accused Madan Lal had called his son. On 20^th March, he visited the Police Station where the accused was being interrogated by the police and the accused wa