State Of J&K vs Dewan Chand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1740 j&K

        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                                              Reserved on : 21.12.2021
                                              Pronounced on : 24.12.2021

                                               SLAA No.81/2014
                                               in
                                               CONCR No.70/2014
                                               CRAA No. 73/2014

State of J&K                                  .....Petitioner

                        Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra, GA

               versus

Dewan Chand & others                           .....Respondent(s)

                        Through: Mr. Satinder Gupta, Advocate

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE


                                JUDGMENT

1. Through the medium of instant application, i.e., SLAA No.81/2014, the

applicant-State is seeking leave of the Court to file the acquittal appeal against

the judgment dated 26.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Doda, in case, titled as, State vs Dewan Chand & others for the

commission of offence under Section 307/452/147/148/325/326 RPC.

2. Though the application seeking leave to file the acquittal appeal pertains

to the commission of offence under Sections 307/452/147/148/325/326 RPC,

however, the applicant-State in paragraph-1 of the application has stated

regarding commission of offence under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, which means

the instant application has been filed without proper application of mind nor

the learned counsel bothered to go through the application. Accordingly, I

deem it appropriate to dismiss the application. Ordered accordingly.

2 SLA 81/2014

3. Consequently, CONCR No.70/2014 too shall stand dismissed.

Otherwise too, there was a delay of 61 days in filing the acquittal appeal, the

applicant-State has not explained in the application that what prevented it from

filing the acquittal appeal within time nor has projected any justifiable reason

for such a delay or when it had applied for obtaining the certified copy of

impugned judgment dated 26.10.2013. The applicant-State has failed to explain

each day's delay. Since there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay,

therefore, in my view, no sufficient cause has been made out to condone the

delay in filing the acquittal appeal.

4. In view of dismissal of condonation application, the instant appeal, i.e.,

CRAA No.73/2014 too does not survive and the same is also dismissed being

barred by time. Otherwise too, a perusal of the statement of PW Narinder

Kumar, as borne out from the impugned judgment, reveals that he specifically

deposed that because of darkness he could not identify the assailant who

caused him injury; meaning thereby he was not having the knowledge who

assaulted him. He further deposed that he never gave any statement before the

police that Surinder Kumar had caused injuries on his head with a Kulhari.

5. Whereas, PW Darshana Devi, wife of victim PW Narinder Kumar, had

deposed that accused Surinder Kumar assaulted her husband Narinder Kumar

with Kulhari and caused injuries on his head. Thus, there were material

contradictions in the statements of PW Narinder Kumar and PW Darshana

Devi.

6. PW Thakur Lal in his deposition stated that he was eye witness to the

occurrence as PW Darshana Devi, wife of Narinder Kumar, is his daughter. He

specifically deposed that an undershirt was seized by the police in his presence 3 SLA 81/2014

and that power was on at the time of occurrence, whereas PW Narinder Kumar

had specifically deposed that power supply was off at the time of occurrence.

Thus, there were material contradictions too in the statements of PW Thakur

Lal and PW Narinder Kumar. Further, the case of prosecution was that the

accused persons were armed with kulhari, kudali and dandas, whereas no such

weapon of offence was seized/recovered by the police. Even PW Thakur Lal

had deposed that the police only seized an undershirt. Therefore, on merits too,

the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Even I do not find

it to be a fit case to interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial Court. In

my opinion, the trial Court based on the evidence has rightly concluded that the

prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons, thus has

acquitted them of the offences. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit

is hereby dismissed.

              Jammu:                                                         (Tashi Rabstan)
              24.12.2021                                                         Judge
              (Anil Sanhotra)




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




ANIL SANHOTRA
2021.12.24 15:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document