The lack of sufficient circumstantial evidence and failure to establish conspiracy precludes finding of guilt against the respondent.

1. The State of Jammu and Kashmir (now the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir) is in appeal against a judgment of acquittal dated 4th June, 2005, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Anantnag (for short "the Trial Court") in appeal No. 27 - A / Sessions titled " State v. Rayees Ahmad Sofi".

2. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant on various grounds. However, before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to narrate briefly the prosecution case as was put up before the Trial Court. Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

3. On the morning of 9th July, 2003, beheaded dead body of ASI Ghulam Hassan was found in the courtyard of Boys Higher Secondary School, Yaripora, which made the Police Station Kulgam to swing into action and register FIR No. 150/03 at Police Station, Kulgam. The investigation was taken up and during the course of investigation it came to fore that the deceased Police Officer had two wives. The second wife of the deceased PW13 - Mst. Nasreena, a police constable, used to visit Yaripora and during her visits was staying in the house of a friend of her deceased husband. This friend of the deceased husband was none other than the respondent herein.

4. It was also found during the investigation that the deceased and the respondent were so close friends that on one occasion the deceased along with his wife and respondent had together gone to Pahalgam on a picnic. The police thus concluded that it was the respondent herein who had taken the deceased from the Police Post on the evening of 8th July, 2003, on the pretext that his second wife had come to his place. The respondent took the deceased along with him and handed him over to the militants pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by him with the militants at the residence of Prince Abdali.

5. The militants took the deceased to the nearby Boys Arif Hameed Higher Secondary School, Yaripora, and slaughtered him I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document during the intervening night of 8th and 9th July, 2003. On the basis of the statements of various witnesses recorded under S.161 CrPC, a final report establishing the guilt of the respondent qua the murder of the deceased was prepared and presented before the competent court of law. On 7th February, 2004, the Trial Court, on the basis of the material placed before it in the shape of a final report, framed the charges against the respondent. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution produced all the sixteen listed witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed on 15.02.2005. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing therein were put to the respondent and his statement in terms of S.342 CrPC was recorded on 02.04.2005. The respondent denied his complicity in the crime. He, however, chose not to lead any evidence in defence.

7. The Trial Court after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and having gone through the entire prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that all the entire case was rested on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish any of the circumstances Arif Hameed sought to be projected in the prosecution evidence. The Trial I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Court thus concluded that the prosecution had miserably failed to connect the respondent with the commission of offence and thus acquitted him of all the charges vide judgment of acqui