Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 281 (JK)

State of J & K v. Pawan Kumar & Ors.

2011-05-30

J.P.SINGH

body2011
1. Charged under Sections 307/149 RFC and 4/25 of the Arms Act for attacking Mukhtiar Singh with sharp edged weapons and causing him grievous injuries on January 16, 1996 at 8 p.m. near his house, the respondents were acquitted by the leaned Sessions Judge, Samba vide his judgment and order of July 08,2010. 2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir has questioned the respondents' acquittal urging that the trial Court had omitted to appreciate in true and proper perspective the prosecution evidence and its conclusion was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Along with the Appeal, it has moved Motion seeking condonation of 214 days' delay in filing the Appeal. 3. Heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General on the merits of the Appeal as well to deal with the State's plea seeking condonation of the delay in filing the Appeal. 4. The trial Court has found the statements of PWs Mukhtiar Singh, Kewal lal and Dev Raj unreliable noticing several contradictions in evidence of these witnesses. Finding that the other prosecution witnesses including PW- Vijay Singh, the brother of injured Mukhtiar Singh, had not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution had failed to produce Surjeet Singh, in front of whose shop the occurrence had taken place, the Charge against the respondents was held not proved and respondents entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecu­tion story. 5. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is one of the views which could possibly be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view the contradictions appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as noticed by the trial Court. 6. The failure of the prosecution to produce Surjeet Singh, in front of whose shop the occurrence had taken place and omission of important facts in the FIR too had weighed with the trial Court in supporting its conclusion that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. 7. When two views are possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to their innocence, view which was favourable to the accused is normally adopted. 8. 7. When two views are possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to their innocence, view which was favourable to the accused is normally adopted. 8. In view of the reasoned finding of the trial Court, on appreciation of the prosecution evidence, finding the respondents entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt, there does not appear to be any merit in the State's Appeal. 9. Coming to the State's Application seeking condonation of 214 days' delay in filing the Appeal, the causes and reasons which had delayed the filing of the Appeal have been explained by the State in the following words:- "(a) The Judgment is passed on 20.7.2010. For getting copy, the application was filed on 9.9.2010. The copy issued on 23.9.2010 (b) The matter was examined at different level including the Office of Public Prosecutor and the Law Department. The delay is not deliberate. (c) The sanction to file the appeal accorded on 4.3.2011. It took few more days in drafting and filing the appeal." 10. Looked from any angle, the above quoted reasons projected by the State seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal cannot be construed as justifiable and sufficient to consider condonation of delay, in that, there is significant omission in the Application as to how the matter had got delayed in filing the Appeal and what steps the State had taken to ensure the filing of the Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 11. Expiry of period prescribed for filing the Appeal agains t any determination, vests strong right in the opposite party to take benefit of determination and the right so acquired cannot be taken away on mere ipse dixit of the party seeking condona­tion of delay, unless, however, the party seeking condonation demonstrates its bonafide in taking requisite steps to file the Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and indicates the cause(s) that had disabled it in filing the Appeal. 12. The slipshod manner in which the State has drafted its Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal indicating absolutely no justifiable reason which had delayed the filing of the Appeal, does not warrant consideration. 13. Therefore, finding no sufficient cause and explanation in not filing the Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, Condl(Cr.) No. 45/2011 is found to be without merit. 14. 13. Therefore, finding no sufficient cause and explanation in not filing the Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, Condl(Cr.) No. 45/2011 is found to be without merit. 14. It is, therefore, dismissed along with Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 62/2011.