State Of J&K vs Lyaqat Ali And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1602 j&K

                                                                        Sr. No. 03



       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU


                                                 CRAA No. 159/2013


State of J&K                                          ....Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                 Through :- None


         V/s

Lyaqat Ali and others                                          ....Respondent(s)

                Through :-    None


Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                                     ORDER

03.12.2021

1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal

dated 07.01.2013 recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua ("the

trial Court") in case File No. 23/Sessions titled State Vs Lyaqat Ali, whereby the

trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 306/109

RPC.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as was projected in the final

report, is that on 14.04.2007 afternoon, Maqsooda Begum ("the deceased"),

sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set herself on fire. As a result, she

sustained serious burn injuries and was admitted, in the first instance, in the Sub

District Hospital, Bani, from where she was later referred to Government

Medical College, Jammu for further treatment. The deceased breathed her last on

05.05.2007 in Government Medical College, Jammu. As per the prosecution

story, the accused had the habit of picking up quarrels with the deceased, and on

12.04.2007, they thrashed the deceased on a dispute over a heap of hay. It is

stated that these acts of the accused had instigated the deceased to take extreme

step of taking her own life. The statement of the deceased was recorded on

14.04.2007 by the police after seeking a certificate of fitness from the Doctor

attending her. On the basis of the statement of the deceased, an FIR under

Section 309 RPC was registered in the Police Station, which upon the death of

the deceased, was converted into an offence under Section 306 RPC. The

investigation was set in motion and on completion of the same, the charge sheet

for offence under Sections 306/109 RPC was laid before the Court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate who on 08.09.2008 committed the case to the Court of

Sessions for judicial determination of the charge. The trial Court took charge of

the case and framed charges against all the accused for offence under Section

306/109 RPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial.

3. With a view to prove its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Mohd

Abdul Awal, Abdul Rashid, Mohd Hanief, Noor Mohd, Mohd Abas, Abdul

Qayoom, Nazir Ahmed, Nisar Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed ASI as its witnesses.

The incriminating circumstances that had emerged in the prosecution evidence

against the accused were put to them and, accordingly, their statements under

Section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused decided not to lead any

evidence in defence.

4. The matter was considered by the trial Court and having regard to the

nature of evidence that had come on record, the trial Court came to the

conclusion that prosecution had failed to connect the accused with the

commission of crime and the nexus between the cause of death of deceased and

the acts attributed to the accused was not established in a sense that it could not

be said that it is because of the alleged acts of accused, the deceased was driven

to commit suicide. The trial Court has given elaborate reasons in support of its

finding of facts recorded in the judgment dated 07.01.2013. It is this judgment of

the trial Court which is assailed before this Court in this appeal.

5. Having considered the memo of appeal and the material on record, I

am of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court, in the light of evidence

on record, is unexceptionable. The trial Court has rightly concluded that there

was enough evidence to demonstrate that the deceased had died due to burn

injuries and it was a death due to self-inflicted injuries. The trial Court, however,

has very correctly noted that some minor scuffle between the deceased and the

accused over a heap of hay took place on 12.04.2007, where as the deceased

took the extreme step on 14.04.2007, and therefore, there was enough time for

reflection. The trial Court has rightly concluded that the suicide committed by

the deceased was not a direct result of the scuffle that had taken place between

the deceased and the accused on 12.04.2007. It has also come in the evidence

that the scuffle between the petitioner and the accused was not one sided. As a

matter of fact, it was the deceased who was the first to thrash the accused-

Mareema Begum and thereafter, others intervened to have the matter amicably

settled. Be that as it may, this court is at one with the trial Court on the finding

that the scuffle which allegedly took place on 12.04.2007 could not be the direct

cause of the deceased taking extreme step of taking her own life, more so, when

more than 48 hours in-between had intervened.

6. The deceased, as is rightly concluded by the trial Court, was possibly

the person with hyper-sensitive nature, which ultimately became the cause of her

committing suicide.

7. For all these reasons, as also the reasons given by the trial Court in the

judgment after proper evaluation of evidence, I do not find it a fit case for

interference in acquittal appeal. Needless to say that the law with regard to scope

of interference by the appellate Court in the acquittal appeal is well-settled and

even if, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, the

appellate Court would take the view which favours the accused. It is only where

view taken and the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and contrary

to settled legal position, the appellate Court may intervene even in the acquittal

appeal.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this acquittal

appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu:

03.12.2021
Sahil T



                      Whether the order is speaking:?      Yes/No

                      Whether the order is reportable:?    Yes/No