##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Case:-CRAA No.4/2013

Reserved on: 27.11.2025

Pronounced on:30.12.2025

Uploaded on:30.12.2025

Whether the operative part or

full judgment is pronounced

State of Jammu and Kashmir

….…Appellant

Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG.

VERSUS

Mehboob Hussain and others

.…. Respondents

Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate.

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE

(JUDGMENT)

Shahzad Azeem-J

1. By virtue of this acquittal appeal, challenge is thrown to

the judgment dated, October 13, 2012, passed by learned Principal

Sessions Judge, Kishtwar [the trial Court] in case titled “State vs.

Mehboob Hussain and others”, whereby the trial Court has

CRAA No. 4/2013 Page 1 of 14

acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 302/34/109

RPC.

2. Since this is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal,

therefore, it has to be borne in mind that the Court should not

ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two

views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be

the more probable one.

3. It is equally settled that the appellate court, however,

must bear in mind that in a case of acquittal, there is double

presumption in favour of the accused, firstly; the presumption of

innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of

criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be

innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.

Secondly; the accused having secured his acquittal, the

presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and

strengthened by the trial Court. Therefore, if two reasonable

conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record,

the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal

recorded by the trial court. Support for this proposition can be

drawn from the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in “Babu vs.

State of Kerala” (2010) 9 SCC 189.

CRAA No. 4/2013 Page 2 of 14

4. We may now proceed to examine the merits of the case,

bearing in mind the broader principles of law governing an appeal

against acquittal.

FACTS

5. The Investigating Agency swang in action in pursuance to

the written report, EXPW-FA submitted by PW1-Fareed Hussain

Bhat on June 06, 2005 alleging therein that his sister,

Mst. Wahida Begum (deceased) was married to accused, Mehboob

Hussain (A-1), however after sometime their marital relations ran

into rough weather, as the brother of A-1, namely; Shabir Ahmed

(A-2) wanted to marry his sister-in-law to A-1, because she also

stated to have ₹80,000/- bank deposit. Therefore, as prosecution

story goes, A-1 on the instigation of A-2, started torturing and

maltreating the deceased, so that he may solemnize his second

marriage to the sister-in-law of A-2. Accordingly, in order to get rid

of the deceased, the accused along with the family members have

committed murder of deceased on June 06, 2005. This written

report led to registration of a formal case being FIR No.68/2005

under Section 302/109 RPC and investigation commenced.

CRAA No. 4/2013 Page 3 of 14

6. On completion of investigation, it has come to fore that

frequent visits of a militant, namely; Jahangir to the house of A-1,

Mehboob Hussain, gave rise to suspicions of his illicit intimacy

with the deceased, therefore, accused have started torturing the

deceased and also as per prosecution version, deceased had

attempted to commit suicide and also Panchayats were convened,

including the deceased alleged to have filed a case before the Court

of learned Sub Judge, Kishtwar, but same was later on

compromised. It is further alleged that A-1, A-2 and accused,

Sajjad Ahmed (A-3) have hatched the conspiracy and trio in

furtherance of common criminal intention on June 05, 2005,

strangulated the deceased to death by a plastic rope.

7. During trial, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses

out of listed 18 witnesses.

8. The prosecution had tried to support its case by direct as

well as indirect evidence. The