Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 822 (JK)

State of J&K v. Pritam Singh

2017-09-08

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : SLAA No.D-260/2014 1. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, SLAA No.D-260/2014 is allowed. Cr. Acquittal Appeal is taken up on board. Cr. Accquital Appeal No. D-248/2014 1. In this Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the judgment dated 15.10.2013, by which the respondents have been acquitted in respect of offence under Sections 302/307/323/324/34 RPC and 3/25/4/25 Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 23.06.2001 at 10.30 p.m. information was received at Police Station, Phalain Mandal that a fight had taken place between two groups, in which some persons were injured and one of them had succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid information, First Information Report for offence under Sections 302/307/323/324/34 RPC and 3/25/4/25 Arms Act was registered against the respondents and investigation commenced. During the investigation, it has come to fore that dead body of Kulbir Singh was recovered from the Mortuary room of Govt. Medical College Hospital. It is the case of the prosecution that injured Gian Singh and Pritam Singh were involved in litigation with regard to land and earlier also there had been fights between them. On the day of incident at about 9.45 a.m, the deceased Kulbir Singh and Jasbir while returning to their house, were intercepted in the way and attacked by accused persons, namely, Pritam Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Satpal Singh and Jasbir Singh on account of previous enmity. However, Jasbir Singh managed to escape and informed his family members, who rushed to the spot and tried to save the deceased. The accused Pritam Singh and his sons attacked Gian Singh and his other family members with common criminal intention to murder and accused Satpal Singh inflicted injuries to Gian Singh and Balbir Kour with an axe. The accused Jasbir Singh fired at Kulbir Singh with his double barrel gun injuring him critically. Manmeet Singh and Rajinder Kour also received pallet injuries. It is also the prosecution case that the accused Pritam Singh and Gurdeep Singh also beat up PW-Gian Singh and others with fist blows and kicks. The Police after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the respondents for the offence as aforesaid. 3. Manmeet Singh and Rajinder Kour also received pallet injuries. It is also the prosecution case that the accused Pritam Singh and Gurdeep Singh also beat up PW-Gian Singh and others with fist blows and kicks. The Police after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the respondents for the offence as aforesaid. 3. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant submitted that the trial Court ought to have relied on the testimonies of three eye witnesses, namely, Gian Singh, Jasbir Singh and Inderjit Singh. It is further submitted that trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings and consequent judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment passed by the trial court. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses, out of 20 cited in the charge sheet. Out of 15 witnesses, the prosecution has examined as many as seven eye-witnesses. However, two injured witnesses, namely, Rajinder Kour, wife of the deceased and Manmeet Singh, son of the deceased, who are stated to have sustained pallet injuries during the incident, have resiled from their earlier statements given to the Police and have not supported the prosecution version to the extent of identifying the accused persons as assailants. PW Rajinder Singh, who happens to be the brother-in-law and PW-Sat Pal Singh the Nephew of the deceased have also not supported the prosecution version. Similarly, PWs Mohd Din and Iqbal who have also been figuring as eye-witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. Likewise, PW Harbans Singh has also not supported the prosecution version. Thus, there are only three eye witnesses to the incident, namely, Gian Singh, Jasbir Singh and Inderjit Singh. The presence of these witnesses on spot is doubtful in view of the clear statements of PWs Rajinder Kour and Manmeet Singh, who are none but wife and son of the deceased. The conduct of these witnesses also does not appear to be natural, since PW Jasbir Singh, who was accompanying the deceased would not have left the deceased in the given situation at the first place and then he would not have gone hiding when his father and brother were under severe attack by the respondents. The conduct of these witnesses also does not appear to be natural, since PW Jasbir Singh, who was accompanying the deceased would not have left the deceased in the given situation at the first place and then he would not have gone hiding when his father and brother were under severe attack by the respondents. It would have taken at least 30 minutes to PW Jasbir Singh to reach at his residence and then return along with other family members. 5. PW-Rajinder Kour, the wife of the deceased has deposed that it was a dark night so she could not see who fired at her husband. However, she and her son Manpreet also received pallet injuries with those gun shots. She has further stated that accused persons were known to her but she could not say whether anyone of them had fired at her husband. On cross-examination by the APP, she has denied specifically that she had made any statement to Police that accused persons fired at her husband. Thus, from the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is evident that the aforesaid witnesses are not eye witnesses of the occurrence. PWs Rajinder Kour and Manmeet Singh have deposed that they could not identify the assailants on the ground that it was dark. PW Rajinder Singh has also deposed that he did not see PW Gian Singh on spot but saw the latter in an injured condition. There is no cogent material on record to connect the respondents with the alleged offences. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and acquitted the respondents of the offence alleged against them. 6. 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 . 7. (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 . 7. 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.