Sr. No. 211
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SLA 52/2014 in
CRAA 48/2014
State ..... Petitioner (s)
Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney AAG
V/s
Vijay Jaitly .....Respondent(s)
Through :- None
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
ORDER
1 This is an application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in file No. 31/Sessions titled 'State vs Vijay Jaitley'.
2 Having heard learned counsel for the applicant/State and perused the record, I am of the view that the applicant/State has failed to make out a case for grant of leave to file Criminal Acquittal Appeal . 3 From the reading of the judgment of acquittal, sought to be challenged by the State through the medium of Criminal Acquittal appeal clearly transpires that the story projected by the prosecution in the challan has not been substantiated by the evidence recorded by the trial Court during the trial. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6 th July, 2008, the police of Police Station, City Jammu received an information that one Rajiv Sharma son of Om Parkash Sharma resident of Gali Malhotra, Jammu was admitted in Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu in an injured condition. The 2 police rushed to the Hospital and recorded the statement of said Rajiv Sharma, who in his deposition, stated that when he saw the accused beating a coolie, he intervened and rescued him. And also asked the accused as to why he was beating him. On this, the accused inflicted a Toka blow on his head and injured him severely. Some people of the Mohalla came on spot and shifted him to the Hospital. On the basis of his statement, the police registered a case FIR No. 52/2008 for offences under Sections 307/323 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act in the Police Station and the investigation set in motion. After completion of investigation, the police presented the challan before the trial Court. 4 Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined Gourav Sharma, Pankaj Padha, Rajesh Jaitley, Pawan Jaitley, Kuldeep Singh, Javed Ahmed, SI and Krishan Chand SI as prosecution witnesses. PW Gourav Sharma did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile by the prosecution. His only statement was that when he asked the injured as to who had beaten him, the injured replied that since the electricity was off, so he could not see the person who was beating him. To the similar effect is the statement of Pankaj Padha, who in his deposition, stated that he saw the injured with injuries on his head and arms. However, he did not see anybody beating the injured because of darkness on the spot. He too was declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, PW Rajesh Jaitley, Pawan Jaitley and Kuldeep Singh too did not support the prosecution story. They too were declared hostile. In this way, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case and, accordingly, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission of offences and discharged him from surety and personal bonds.
3
5 Learned AAG appearing for the State could not point out any evidence on record which could connect the accused with the commission of offences.
6 Having regard to the merits of the appeal preferred by the State, it would be sheer abuse of process of law, if leave is granted to the State to file the Criminal Acquittal Appeal. The request of the State for grant of leave to appeal is, thus, declined. Accordingly, SLA 52/2014 as also CRAA 48/2014 are dismissed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Jammu 18.02.2021 Sanjeev Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable:Yes/No SANJEEV KUMAR UPPAL 2021.02.22 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document