The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT

Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, J.

By way of the present appeal, State of Haryana has challenged the judgment dated 22.01.2003, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby Vinod Singh, respondent and his four other co-accused were ordered to be acquitted by the Trial Court of the charge under Section 302 IPC.

2. The prosecution story, as it emerges from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, is that a V.T, message was received in Police Station City, Rohtak from Police Post PGIMS, Rohtak to the effect that Ravi son of Mahender Singh was brought dead and Lal Ji son of Dharam had been admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak in injured condition. On getting this information, ASI Ram Kumar along with other police officials reached PGIMS, Rohtak and recorded the statement of Anita wife of Ravinder Singh @ Ravi. In her statement, Anita stated that at about 10:00 P.M on 27.12.1999 she along with her husband, Ravinder Singh @ Ravi and her brother Sudesh Pal, were present in their house and were watching TV. The wire of the cable was passing through their house. Pappu, accused, who lived in their street had joined the connection of his television with their cable connection and due to this, their television was disconnected. She and her husband asked Pappu as to why he had done so and why he had connected the cable wire with his television, as Pappu was not paying any cable charges. He replied that cable did not belong to his father. Pappu got down from the roof, caught hold of neck of her husband and dragged him in the street and gave him slaps. In the meanwhile, Lala, who was brother-in-law of Pappu, Saroj wife of Manohar Lal and Vinod, brother of Pappu, who was carrying a country made pistol in his hands and came there. Vinod fired a shot all of a sudden from the backside, which had hit on the right side of the head of her husband and he fell down on the ground. She along with her brother, Sudesh Pal brought her husband to their house. Vinod fired another shot, which hit his brother-in-law, Lala by chance. Thereafter, all the assailants fled away from the spot and her mother-in-law Lahli, also reached to the spot. She and her mother-in-law, Lahli shifted Ravinder @ Ravi to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak for treatment. However, after sometime, her husband died in the hospital. Her husband Ravinder @ Ravi had been killed by Vinod, Pappu, Saroj and Lala with common intention. On the said statement made by Anita widow of Ravinder @ Ravi, the FIR in the present case was registered.

3. After recording the above statement, ASI Ram Kumar made his endorsement and on the basis of the statement, the formal FIR Ex.PG/2 was recorded by SI Shiv Singh for the offence under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.

4. After conducting the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented before the Area Magistrate, which was committed for trial to the Sessions Court, Rohtak. Vide the order and charge-sheet dated 06.01.2001, charge under Sections 302/34 of IPC was framed against Vinod, Pappu, Jugnu and Saroj. Thereafter, several prosecution witnesses were examined by the Trial Court. However, later on, Lala son of Dharam Chand was also arrested and the charge was again ordered to be framed under Sections 302/34 of IPC in the present case and the witnesses were examined by the Trial Court again.

5. During the course of trial, on the asking of Lala, accused, all the material witnesses which were already examined were summoned again and their statements were recorded again. However, learned counsel for Lala, accused stated that he had no objection, in case the statements of certain formal witnesses i.e SI Shiv Singh PW-1, who had recorded formal FIR; C. Jagbir Singh., PW-4, who had tendered in evidence Ex.PD regarding delivery of special report; Shri. Niwas Reader to District Magistrate, PW-6 who proved sanction order Ex.PH of District Magistrate for trial of accused Vinod under Section 25 of Arms Act, C. Samit Kuma