JUDGMENT

1. The State is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated

20.03.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch [“the trial court”] in Sessions Case No.15/Session titled ‘State of J&K v. Surinder Kumar’, whereby respondent as an accused was acquitted of the charge for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376/306 RPC arising out of FIR No.40/2000 registered at Police Station, Poonch.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr.Adarsh Bhagat, GA to find fault with the judgment impugned, a brief reference to the prosecution case, as was set up before the trial court, would be worthwhile to narrate.

FIR No. 40/2000 for commission of offences under Sections

376/309/34 RPC came to be registered at Police Station Poonch, on the basis of statement of deceased Jyoti Sharma, which was recorded by ASI Ali Mohd. in the District Hospital, Poonch. As per this statement, in the intervening night of 17/18 April, 2000, while she was sleeping in the house of her uncle Chaman Lal, respondent along with Ashu and Rimple came there and committed rape on her while the two other boys were standing on the door; that at that time, minor daughters of Chaman Lal were also sleeping in the house; that she left for the house of PW-Chander Parkash and returned back to her uncle’s house at 5 a.m. thereafter at 5.30 a.m. respondent left for his house. The deceased, who was alone along with minor daughters of Chaman Lal, managed to send them to school and thereafter having felt insulted and out of fear that her uncle will beat her and public will laugh at her, she attempted to commit suicide at about 11 a.m.

by setting her ablaze.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation was handed over to Sub Inspector Ahmed Din, who visited the spot and prepared site plan. Burnt pieces of clothes belonging to deceased, a match box and a plastic gallon containing kerosene oil were seized and forwarded to FSL. The deceased having 100% burn injuries died in the hospital on the same day in the evening, therefore, offence under Section 309 was substituted by 306 RPC. The postmortem was conducted and the dead body was handed over to her relatives for last sites. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC were recorded. Respondent along with Ashu and Rimple were arrested. After completion of investigation, Ashu and Rimple, against whom no incriminating evidence was found, were dropped out and challan against the respondent was presented.

4. The respondent was charged with commission of offences punishable under Section 376/306 RPC, however, respondent pleading not guilty denied the charge for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376/306 RPC and claimed trial. Prosecution examined Dr. Femida Bandey, Chaman Lal, Ram Avtar, Sushil Kumar, Miss Mamta, Khem Raj, Chander Parkash, Om Parkash, Mohd. Latief, Dr. Farmanullah and SI Ahmed Din as prosecution witnesses to prove the charge against the respondent.

However, the respondent has not examined any witness in defence.

5. The matter was considered by the trial court and having regard to the evidence on record, it was concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the respondent beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt and accordingly, acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him vide its judgment dated 20.03.2007. It is this judgment, which is assailed by the appellant in this appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the trial court has failed to appreciate evidence on record and has drawn an erroneous conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt whereas the evidence on record was sufficient to connect the respondents with the commission of offences, he was charged with.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, I am of the view that having regard to the nature of evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution, the trial court had no option