Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State vs Vijay Jaitly on 18 February, 2021
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
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.
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
