Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 690 (JK)

State of J&K v. Shakti Singh

2017-08-19

ALOK ARADHE, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.12.2005 passed by the trial court, by which the respondents have been acquitted of offences under sections 302/34 RPC. 2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 15.02.1999, one Constable Hamid Hussain presented a docket from Ragoura Camp, in which it was stated that he along with Ram Chand and Mohd Shafi was on patrolling duty on 15.09.1999. When they reached at the National Highway Bye Pass, near bridge, on the side of the road, they found a dead body having injuries and the blood was oozing from the injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid docket, FIR for offences under section 302/34 RPC was registered. During the course of investigation, statements of some witnesses were recorded under section 161 of Cr. P.C. and thereafter, charge sheet was presented in the Court against the respondents for offences under section 302/34 RPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case cited as many as 27 witnesses. However, out of the 27 witnesses, only 19 witnesses were examined in the trial Court and out of the aforesaid 19 witnesses, 14 witnesses were declared hostile. The trial court on the basis of material available on record, vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondents of the offences alleged against them. 4. Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. Additional Advocate General, submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted erroneous findings and the consequent the judgment. It is further submitted that there was sufficient material available on record to bring home the guilt to the respondents. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The prosecution in the instant case has cited 27 witnesses, out of which, 19 witnesses were produced before the trial court and out of said 19 witnesses, 14 witnesses have been declared hostile. PW-Alam Din, PW-Jumma, PW-Bansi Lal, PW Kewal Krishan, PW-Surinder Singh, PW Goverdhan Singh and PW Rakesh Kumar have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Nothing incriminating from their cross-examination could be elicited against the respondents. PW Rasal Singh, NaibTehsildar was the witness to resealing of the packets and PW Surjeet Kumar, who was the photographer and has taken the photographs of the dead body. Nothing incriminating from their cross-examination could be elicited against the respondents. PW Rasal Singh, NaibTehsildar was the witness to resealing of the packets and PW Surjeet Kumar, who was the photographer and has taken the photographs of the dead body. However, he has denied the signatures on the photographs. 6. PW Rajinder Kumar, Sub Inspector, has stated that he had investigated the FIR in question and has stated that all the accused are liable to be punished for commission of offences under section 302/34 RPC. PW Romesh Singh has stated that he was deputed to arrest Narotam Singh, accused. However, he could not be traced by him and accordingly, submitted the report to the SHO. PW Rashid Ahmed has stated that he was deputed to search Narotam Singh and he could not trace him and the matter was reported to the SHO. PW Chattar Singh has stated that at the relevant time, he was posted in Police Station, Nagrota. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know who is owner of Tata Sumo and blood stained seat cover has not been seen by him on that day in the Court. PW Dr. C. S. Gupta, who was posted as Assistant Professor Forensic Medicines and has conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased has stated that some of the injuries have been caused on the person of the deceased by a blunt weapon and some of the injuries have been caused by sharp edged weapon. PW Masood Sadiq, Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu in his cross examination has stated that the sample was not weighed by him. The clay sample has not been shown to him on that day in the court, which was exhibited by him at the time of tests. 7. Thus, from the perusal of the prosecution evidence, it is evident that the prosecution witnesses, namely, Alam Din, Bansi Lal, Kewal Krishan have been declared hostile by the prosecution as they have not supported the prosecution case. Similarly, the prosecution witness, Surinder Singh has stated that the accused persons, who were present in the court, are not known to him. He has further stated that deceased was also not known to him. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, PW-Goverdhan Singh has been declared hostile by the prosecution and PW Darshan Kumar has stated nothing about the incident. He has further stated that deceased was also not known to him. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, PW-Goverdhan Singh has been declared hostile by the prosecution and PW Darshan Kumar has stated nothing about the incident. PW Rasal Singh Naib Tehsildar, has stated that he has resealed the dockets, which were already sealed by the Police and has referred the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu. Likewise, PW Sanjay Kumar and PW Sudershan Kumar, who were sons of the deceased are not eye witnesses to the incident. Thus, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the respondents. 8. The trial court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the trial court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse (see Ram Swaroop and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa ( 2015 11 SCC 124 . 9. From perusal of the judgment of the trial court, we find that the findings recorded by the trial court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.