Conviction under Section 302 RPC unsustainable on uncorroborated child witness testimony with material contradictions, hostile key witnesses, doubtful weapon recovery, and unproved motive, entitling accused to benefit of reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Parihar, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-The appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the conviction has been recorded mainly on the basis of the testimony of PW-2 Shah Begum, the minor daughter of the deceased, who has been projected as the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. It is contended that the Trial Court misdirected itself in placing reliance upon the testimony of a child witness without properly appreciating the contradictions appearing in her statement and without testing her testimony against the surrounding circumstances of the case.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.05.2002 at about 06:45 a.m., PW-1 Bagh Hussain produced the injured Wazir Mohammad in an unconscious condition and informed that the deceased and the appellant were sharing a common room at Roop Nagar, Jammu. According to the prosecution, the appellant suspected that the deceased had developed illicit relations with his wife and on that account, bitterness had arisen between the two. On the date of occurrence, at about 06:00 a.m., the appellant allegedly assaulted the deceased with a “gainti”, causing grievous head injuries which rendered him unconscious. The information was recorded at Police Post Chinore vide DD No. 24 dated 30.05.2002 which ultimately led to registration of FIR under Section 307 RPC. The injured was taken to GMC Jammu for treatment. During investigation the appellant was arrested and is stated to have made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence, namely a gainti, from the bushes near the place of occurrence. The deceased later succumbed to the injuries in the hospital and consequently the offence was converted into one under Section 302 RPC, whereafter the appellant came to be charge-sheeted and tried.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined several witnesses including PW-1 Bagh Hussain, PW-2 Shah Begum, the minor daughter of the deceased, PW-3 Baldev Raj (Constable), PW-4 Sudesh Kumar, PW-5 Rattan Singh, PW-6 Khan Mohammad, PW-7 Zakir Hussain, PW-8 Piyare Lal, PW-9 Jagbir Singh (Naib Tehsildar), PW-10 Farooq Iqbal (Patwari Halqa), PW-11 Dr. Manju Tickoo and PW-14 Sub-Inspector Bhupinder Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342 RPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. The appellant denied the prosecution case in its entirety and pleaded that he had never shared a common room with the deceased. He also denied having any dispute with the deceased relating to accounts and asserted that he had vacated the room much prior to his arrest and had been residing with his wife at Roop Nagar. The appellant also denied making any disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence and claimed that he had been falsely implicated.

4. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, concluded that the deceased had suffered a homicidal deat