JUDGMENT

Koul-J

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as the Trial Court=) in case FIR No. 28/2002 registered with Police Station, Nowshera, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, by virtue of which the respondent-Rattanjeet Singh, has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR No. 28/2002 for offences under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 A. Act was registered with Police Station, Nowshera, on 06.04.2002 on the basis of an information received through reliable sources that accused shot dead his wife Smt. Seema Devi at about 6.15 PM in his house. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced. On its completion, it was found that on 06.04.2002 PW-Jagdish Singh had given his 12 bore Rifle to PW-Dharam Paul for repairing, who had kept the rifle in his house and accused Rattanjeet Singh, who happens to be his brother, took out the said rifle in his absence and went to Forest for hunting. He came back from the Forest empty handed, reached home and at that time his wife was peeling onions on the roof of their house, she asked the accused as to why he had come empty handed and told him that in future she would herself go for hunting. On this, he got enraged and fired upon the deceased, who died on spot and after the commission of offence, he concealed the gun inside the house of his brother. The police after having completed the investigation found the offences proved against the accused and accordingly presented the Challan.

3. The accused was charged on 08.08.2002 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act and formal charge was framed. He pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. To prove the charge, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence.

4. Oral evidence of prosecution was PWs Mohan Singh, Babu Lal, Sansar Singh, Vishwa Nath, S. Prem Singh, Dharam Paul, Santosh Kumari, Puma Devi, Jagdish Singh, Krishana Wanti, Shakuntla Devi and Tilak Raj and: PWs Raj Kumar, Dr. Ashok Verma, Smt. Vivek Sharma, Tehsildar, Vinod Kumar, Nazir Hussain Inspector and S. R. Samual.

Documentary evidence was in the shape of seizure memo of dead body (EXPW-1/A), receipt dead body (EXPW-1/B), seizure memo of knife and peeled onions (EXPW-1/C), seizure memo of blood stained cement (EXPW-1/D), seizure memo of cartridges (EXPW-1/E) and seizure memo of clothes of the deceased (EXPW-1/F), memo of disclosure (EXPW-3/A), post mortem report (EXPW-18-M/AV)

5. The Trial Court, on completion of the trial and on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused and accordingly acquitted him. The order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court has been challenged in this Appeal, inter alia, on the following grounds:

1. that the judgment is against the law and facts.

2. the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence.

3. that there is enough evidence to prove the charge for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, against the accused.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence recorded during the trial.

7. To appreciate the grounds taken up in the appeal and the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties, it would be proper to give brief resume of the evidence produced during the trial.

8. PW-1 Mohan Singh has deposed that deceased was his sister and she was married to accused. She was murdered by her husband i.e., accused. He came to know about death of his sister on the same day in the evening when he was at his home in Village Darila. He went to the house of deceased on the same day at about 8.30 PM and by then police had already reached the spot. Dead body of deceased was lying on the roof of the house and deceased wa