State vs Deepak Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1643 j&K

                                                                     Sr. No.17

               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                             AT JAMMU

                                               CRAA No.9900006/2008


State                                             ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

                 Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG.
         V/s
Deepak Kumar                                                 ....Respondent(s)

                 Through :-   None.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

                                   ORDER

09.12.2021

1. The appellant-State has preferred this criminal acquittal appeal against

the judgment dated 24.07.2007 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,

Jammu in case title State vs. Deepak Kumar, whereby the accused has been

acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 306, 498-A RPC.

2. The case as projected by the prosecution is that on 21.08.2006, Mst.

Googan was admitted in Ramgarh Hospital where her statement was recorded

that her husband would assault her physically after consuming liquour and so she

was fed up with him and to get relieved of the pain and agony, she consumed

poison to end her life. It is contended that her statement was recorded in

presence of doctor and the Mst. Googan died after some time of recording her

statement and thereafter the postmortem of dead body was got conducted and the

dead body was handed over for last rites. On this count, FIR No.66/2006 was

registered with Police Station Ramgarh and the investigation commenced. After

completion of the investigation, offence under Section 306/498-A RPC was

proved against the accused person. Accordingly, the accused person pleaded not

guilty and trial of the charges has been commenced. The prosecution had

examined six witnesses namely, Dharam Pal, PW-Gobind Parshad, Bachan Lal,

Tilak Raj, Mohini Devi and Dr. Rajinder Kumar and out of six witnesses, two

witnesses have been left out as they were won over by the defence. As there was

no eye witness, therefore the statements of circumstantial witnesses were

recorded, however none of the witness has deposed against the accused except

the doctor who has conducted the post mortem.

3. It is observed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu that

the dying declaration of the Googan-deceased has been recorded in presence of

the doctor who conducted the post mortem however there is not even a whisper

in the statement of doctor that the dying declaration was recorded in his

presence. Even the doctor himself is silent about the dying declaration having

been recorded in his presence, therefore the learned 2nd Additional Sessions

Judge, Jammu came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed

to prove the charge against the accused and as such dismissed the prosecution's

case by acquitting the accused.

4. On going through the judgment dated 24.07.2007 passed by learned

2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and the record placed along with this

criminal acquittal appeal, I find that no interference is required to be warranted

to the impugned judgment under challenge, therefore, there is no merit in this

appeal and as such the same, accordingly, is dismissed.

(Tashi Rabstan) Judge Jammu:

           09.12.2021
           Surinder

                                              Whether the order is speaking?                  Yes/No
                                              Whether the order is reportable?               Yes/No



SURINDER KUMAR
2021.12.10 13:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document