Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 252 (JK)

State of J&K v. Bhim Singh

2017-05-22

ALOK ARADHE, JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This is a criminal acquittal appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated 12.12.2013, whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondents after their trial for offence under section 306 RPC on a charge sheet arising in FIR No. 18/2009 of Police Station, Gool. Heard Mr. R.S. Jamwal, learned Dy. AG appearing for the State and Mr. O.P. Thakur, Adv. for the respondents. 2. The prosecution case as it was set out before the trial court, briefly, is that there was a proposal for marriage of the deceased, Neelma Devi, with respondent No. 1, Bhim Singh and their engagement was settled. The proposal, however, did not materialize. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (Rano Devi), who is sister in law of respondent No. 1, started harassing the deceased. On 26.04.2009, PW Hukam Singh, who is a cousin of the deceased, had come to Ramban where he met respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 told him that engaged of the deceased was scheduled for 27.04.2009 and that as the deceased is now getting married in her village, they will not allow her to live peacefully. She also threatened to defame the deceased. PW Hukam Singh narrated the matter to the deceased on 28.04.2009. The deceased could not tolerate what respondent No. 2 had said and having been fed up with the harassment and unjust treatment meted out to her by the respondents she consumed poison in the night intervening 29th and 30th April, 2009 and died on 30.04.2009. FIR No. 18/2009 in this regard was registered at Police Station, Gool. After investigation, charge sheet under section 306 RPC was filed against the respondents. 3. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the learned trial court. Prosecution entered its evidence. Learned trial court after appraisal of the evidence, however, acquitted the respondent vide the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2013. Hence this criminal acquittal appeal filed by the State before this Court. 4. The impugned judgment on perusal would show that the learned trial court noticed that PW Hukam Singh did not narrate the incident that had happened on 26.04.2009 to the police for about seven months and likewise neither he nor family members of the deceased had disclosed this incident to anyone for six months after death of the deceased. 4. The impugned judgment on perusal would show that the learned trial court noticed that PW Hukam Singh did not narrate the incident that had happened on 26.04.2009 to the police for about seven months and likewise neither he nor family members of the deceased had disclosed this incident to anyone for six months after death of the deceased. Learned trial court, therefore, seems not to have relied upon the evidence of PW Hukam Singh. Learned trial court also noticed that the deceased had reconciled with aftermath of breaking of her engagement with respondent No. 1 as she was further engaged on 27.04.2009 and had decided to start her life afresh. Learned trial court, therefore, was of the view that entire problem erupted due to the incident involving conversation between respondent No. 2 and PW Hukam Singh in which respondent No. 2 had threatened to defame the deceased and not to allow her to live peacefully after her marriage. Learned trial court, while not relying upon the evidence of PW Hukam Singh, observed also that such a threat by respondent No. 2 cannot be construed as an active role on the part of the respondents, to be described as instigating or intentionally aiding the deceased to commit suicide. Learned trial court held also that 'no positive role has been attributed to either of the accused persons which may be construed as instigating or intentionally aiding the deceased to commit suicide. Mere threat by an accused to defame the deceased or not to allow her to lead a peaceful life after marriage or use of abusive or inappropriate language, are not enough to constitute offence 306 RPC.' 5. Grounds of assail of the impugned judgment are of ordinary nature, precisely that the impugned judgment is contrary to law against the facts of the case and has been passed in the mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence available on record. Trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution properly and statements of the witnesses have been ignored. The prosecution had established the case against the respondents but the trial judge has not appreciated the law and facts of the case. 6. We may state, briefly, the power and duty of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. The prosecution had established the case against the respondents but the trial judge has not appreciated the law and facts of the case. 6. We may state, briefly, the power and duty of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. The appellate court has the power as well as duty to review, appraise and accord consideration to the evidence led by the parties at trial and arrive at its independent conclusion. Since, however, the acquittal has doubled and reinforced the presumption of innocence in favour of an accused, a duty is cast on the appellate court to accord consideration to the reasoning recorded by the trial court in support of the order of acquittal and to set aside the acquittal only if there are compelling reasons, that is, the reasoning given by the trial court is found not only erroneous but unreasonable and perverse and the acquittal is not justified. Purpose to be achieved is that ends of justice are not defeated by unjustified acquittal of a guilty. (Ref.-Sheo Swaroop v. R. Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 , Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , Dilawar Singh v. Singh of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737 , Bhawan Jagannath Marked & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 SC 4531 . 7. We have carefully examined entire record on the trial court file and have read the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. We have accorded our consideration to the reasoning recorded by the trial court in acquitting the respondents. On reading the deposition of PW Hukam Singh, we are persuaded to agree with the view taken by the trial court for not relying upon the evidence rendered by him. We agree with the view taken by the learned trial court treat the incident involved between respondent No. 2 and PW Hukam Singh, which according to the prosecution case had taken place on 26.04.2009 and could have been taken as the immediate cause of commission of offence was not proved. 8. For aforementioned reasons, we find no substance in this acquittal appeal and therefore, dismiss the same. Record of the trial court be remitted back along with a copy of this order.