State Of J&K vs Ram Karan [email protected] Karan Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1397 j&K

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                                Reserved on 27.09.2022
                                               Pronounced on 07.10.2022


                                                   CRAA No. 261/2014(O&M)

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


                   Through :-          Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG

                 v/s   <




      Ram Karan [email protected] Karan Singh                             .....Respondent (s)
      't




                   Through :-          None.
     Coram:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE

                                          JUDGMENT

Per Oswal-J

1. The judgment dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions

Judge, Jammu(hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case titled, State

of J&K vs Ram Karan [email protected] Karan Singh for commission of offences

under sections 302 and 201 RPC arising out of FIR No. 95/2011 of Police

Station, Miran Sahib, has been impugned by the appellant in this appeal on

the ground that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the

evidence and has passed the judgment in a mechanical manner.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that

FIR bearing No. 95/2011 dated 12.09.2011was initially registered under

section 307 RPC with Police Station, R. S. Pura against the respondent on

the receipt of the statement of Anita Devi, wife of respondent, recorded by

Head Constable Jangi Ram in Government Medical College (GMC) Hospital

Jammu wherein she had stated that on 12.09.2011 at 12.30 P.M she asked

her husband to take meals but he stated that he would not take the meals of

her hands and she asked him as to whether he has kept some other lady.

Respondent replied that he has kept some other lady and he would desert

her. Thereafter, the accused/respondent gave her some poisonous medicine

in the water and she became unconscious. She died in the hospital on

13.09.2011 and offence was converted into 302 RPC. The Investigating

Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and during investigation he

found that after making his wife to consume poison in a glass of water, the

accused threw the glass in the canal. After the conclusion of the

investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the

respondent for commission of offences, under section 302 and 201 RPC

before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, R. S. Pura and the same was

committed to the trial court. Vide order dated 26.12.2011, the respondent

was charged for commission of aforementioned offence. As the respondent

did not plead guilty, so the prosecution was directed to lead evidence and all

the 14 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined.

3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the appellant vehemently

argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the dying declaration but

still the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent.

4. As this court is dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the acquittal

recorded by the trial court, it is apt to examine the scope of interference with

judgment of acquittal. In N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., (2021) 3 SCC

687, Apex Court has held as under:

"20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a

"possible view", having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432) "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following gen eral principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsid er the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evid ence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact an d of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", " good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted co nclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive p owers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseolo gies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the r eluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail th e power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own concl usion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquitt al, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presu mption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innoc ent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidenc e on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

21. Further in the judgment in Murugesan [Murugesan v. State, (2012) 1 0 SCC 383] relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, thi s Court has considered the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal recorded by the trial court. In the said judgment, it is categorical ly held by this Court that only in cases where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view, then only the High Court can interfere a nd reverse the acquittal to that of conviction. In the said judgment, distinc tion from that of "possible view" to "erroneous view" or "wrong view" is explained. In clear terms, this Court has held that if the view taken by th e trial court is a "possible view", the High Court not to reverse the acquitt al to that of the conviction.

5. In order to examine as to whether the acquittal of the respondent was

justified or not being the possible or plausible view, it is appropriate to have

brief resume of the prosecution evidence.

6. PW-1 Jangi Ram stated that in the month of September, 2011, he was posted

in Police Station, Miran Sahib and received a message that Anita Devi wife

of Karan Singh was admitted in GMC Hospital, Jammu and her statement is

required to be recorded. He went to hospital on 12.09.2011 for recording her

statement and submitted a docket to the medical officer and the medical

officer stated that Anita Devi was fit to make statement and thereafter he

recorded the statement of Anita Devi. He proved the docket as also the

statement of the deceased (ExTP JR/1). During cross examination, he stated

that he had not received any written order for proceeding to GMC. He had

prepared the seizure memo of the docket as well as the statement of the

deceased but the same was not found in the file. After recording the

statement of the deceased, he returned back to the Police Station Miran

Sahib at 10.30 in the night. Investigating Officer had not seized the

statement of the deceased and docket from him during investigation. His

statement was recorded on 13.09.2011 by the SHO. It is not mentioned in his

statement recorded under section 161 CrPC that he had handed over the

docket and statement on which date and to whom. He had handed over the

docket as well as statement to the Investigating Officer on 13.09.2011. He

gave an application to the medical officer for recording the statement of the

deceased and at that time, Dr. Sudhir Singh was there, but he was not

medical officer. He has no knowledge as to whether Dr. Sudhir Singh was

undergoing training at that time or not. When he reached GMC Hospital,

Jammu, the deceased was in the emergency ward and was on oxygen. The

husband of the deceased was not present there but he was standing outside.

He had not obtained the signatures of the relatives on the statement of the

deceased. He had not seized the record of Gandhi Nagar Hospital and has

also not disclosed the same to I.O.

7. PW-2 Rajesh Kumar stated that the deceased was daughter of his maternal

uncle and she was married to the accused 15/16 years prior to her death. He

visited the house of in-laws of the deceased occasionally and found that she

was depressed and would say that the accused had illicit relations with

another lady. On 12.09.2011, he came to know that the deceased was

admitted in GMC Hospital and he reached there at 8.30 and talked with the

deceased who told him that the accused had forcibly administered some

poison mixed in the water to her. During cross examination, he stated that

from 12.09.2011 to 24.09.2011, he used to return to his home from his

service daily and after occurrence he went to the Police Station, Miran Sahib

for the first time on 24.09.2011 and from the day of occurrence till

24.09.2011, the Police never came to him to record his statement. He had not

mentioned about illicit relations in his statement recorded under section 161

Cr.P.C. He had not enquired from the deceased as to whether she was forced

to consume poison.

8. PW-3 Swarn Singh (brother of the deceased) stated about the strained

relations between the accused and the deceased after four-five years of

marriage as the accused had developed illicit relations with other lady and he

used to roam in her company and also stayed in her home. He also deposed

about the conduct of the accused and the protest raised by his sister about the

conduct of the respondent. He further stated that the statement of his sister

was recorded in the hospital and she had stated that the accused had forcibly

made her to consume poison mixed with the water. He reached the hospital

and her sister was conscious and was talking. During cross examination, he

stated that from the day of occurrence till 24.09.2011, he was in his home

and during this period, he neither went to the Police Station nor did Police

call him. He has no personal knowledge about the illicit relations of the

accused with other lady. He had made statement before the Police that the

deceased protested against the illicit relations of her husband with that lady

but it has not been recorded by the Police. He had not made any mention in

his statement that when he went to Hospital, the deceased was talking. It is

correct that the deceased was initially taken to Gandhi Nagar Hospital for

treatment before bringing her to GMC Hospital and at that time, Tilak Raj

and Sukhdev Singh were with the deceased. The deceased was not in a

serious condition when she was brought to GMC Hospital. Mangal Singh,

Ajay Singh, Rajesh and Chamail Singh were also present in the hospital, but

they did not sign the statement made by the deceased that was recorded by

Head Constable Jangi Ram.

9. PW-4 Ajay Choudhary stated that the deceased was his Aunt. He deposed

about the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased and

the strained relations were due to illicit relations of the accused with other

lady. On 12.09.2011, after coming to know that the deceased was admitted

in the hospital, he went there and enquired from the deceased as to what had

happened and she replied that some poison was administered to her in water

by the accused. The Police reached there at 8 PM and after getting fitness

certificate from the doctor, recorded her statement. She stated that she asked

her husband to take meals but he refused to take meals from her and he

stated that he had kept another lady and would bring her to home. She was

forcibly made to drink water mixed with some poisonous substance.

Thereafter, the deceased put her signature and thumb impression on her

statement. During cross examination, he stated that he does not remember as

to whether he was in his home from 12.09.2011 to 02.10.2011 or had gone

out. During this period Police never came to him. He went to Police on

2.10.2011 for recording his statement. The Doctor issued the certificate in

his presence that the deceased was fit to make statement but it is not

mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. He does not

have personal knowledge about the illicit relation of the accused with other

lady. He subsequently came to know that the deceased was shifted from

Gandhi Nagar Hospital to GMC Hospital in serious condition.

10. PW-5 Mangal Singh (brother of the deceased) stated that the relationship

between the accused and the deceased after 4/5 years of marriage got

strained. After 4/5 years of marriage, he came to know that the accused had

illicit relations with some other lady and when his sister came to know about

it, she asked the accused about that lady and then accused started harassing

and beating her. On 12.09.2011 at about 11 AM, his sister asked the accused

to take meals and he said that he would not take meals from her hands. His

sister replied that he had kept a mistress and he should take meals from her

hands. The accused said that he would desert her and thereafter, relations

between the accused and his sister became more strained and controversy

flared up. At about 4 PM, he came to know that his sister was admitted in

the GMC Hospital and he went there. She was admitted in emergency ward

and he enquired from her as to what had happened and she replied that the

accused had forcibly administered her poison mixed in water. After two

hours, the Police came to the hospital and Head Constable recorded the

statement of his sister and at that time, Dr. Sudhir Singh was also present

there. Except him, his son Ajay and relative Chamail Choudhary were also

present there. His sister signed the statement in English and also put her

thumb impression. His statement was also got recorded before the

Magistrate. During cross examination, he stated that on 12.09.2011 till

08.10.2011 he remained present in home and never went out and during this

period, he visited Police Station twice or thrice on the summoning of the

Police. His statement was recorded by the Police before the Magistrate on

08.10.2011. When he was confronted with the statement recorded under

section 164-A Cr.P.C. it was found that there was no mention in the said

statement that "his sister asked the accused to take meals and he refused to

take meals. However, when his sister asked him he had some other lady, the

accused said that he had kept a mistress and he would desert her". It is also

not mentioned in his statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. that

the Head Constable recorded the statement of his sister in the hospital. He

admitted that he never made any statement before the Magistrate that when

Head Constable was recording the statement of his sister, Dr. Sudhir Singh

was also present. The presence of his son and relative Chamail Singh at the

time of recording the statement, has also not been mentioned in his statement

recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. It is also not mentioned in his

statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. that the deceased made the

dying declaration in his presence which was signed by the deceased and she

also put thumb impression on it.

11. PW-6 Chamail Singh stated that both accused and the deceased were known

to him. He has stated that after coming to know that Anita Devi was

admitted in the hospital, he along with his son went to the hospital and he

found the name and address of the deceased wrongly written in the file and

he got it corrected. Police also came there and recorded the statement of the

deceased. He further stated that except this, he does not know anything.

Deceased and the accused are his relatives and he would not favour any of

them. During cross examination, he has stated that from 12.09.2011 to

08.10.2011, he was present in his house. Police official had recorded his

statement but he did not sign it.

12. PW-7 Bahadur Singh proved the seizure memo of the dead body. However,

he denied the contents of the seizure memo, cloth of the deceased, but he

identified his signatures. In cross examination, he stated that he is the

Sarpanch of the village and he never received any complaint either from the

accused or from the deceased-Anita Devi that their relations were not

cordial.

13. PW-8 Tilak Raj stated that after receiving phone from the accused that the

deceased had consumed something and driver of the bus has alighted her at

Miran Sahib, he went to Miran Sahib, where the deceased was lying

unconscious and they brought her to Gandhi Nagar Hospital from where she

was referred to SGMS Hospital, Jammu in serious condition. In the hospital,

the doctor put her on oxygen and he and the accused remained in the hospital

for the whole night. The paternal family of the deceased arrived at 11 in the

night. He proved the seizure memo of the dead body as also the receipt of

the dead body. In cross examination, he stated that the Police came to the

hospital on the day of occurrence at about 9.30. The deceased did not make

any statement before the Police as she was unconscious and was put on

oxygen immediately after her arrival in the hospital. He had made such

statement before the Police but cannot say as to why it was not recorded.

14. PW-9 Swarn Lal proved the receipt of the dead body. During cross

examination, he stated that he is the real brother of the accused. There was

no complaint on behalf of the deceased that the accused had illicit relation

with other lady.

15. PW-10 Dr. Sudhir Singh stated that he was undergoing 3 rd year course in

PG, GMC Hospital and on 12.09.2011, he was on night duty in the hospital.

He issued the fitness certificate on the docket dated 12.09.2011 and he

proved the said certificate. On 12.09.2011, Jangi Ram, HC recorded the

statement of the deceased in his presence and the deceased put her thumb

impression and signature on the statement which was attested by him.

During cross examination, he stated that it is correct that on 12.09.2011, he

was not posted as Medical Officer in GMC Hospital but was PG student

there. His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on

16.09.2011, but in his statement it was not written/mentioned that he attested

the statement of the deceased. He stated that the deceased was brought from

Gandhi Nagar Hospital to GMC Hospital in a serious condition and her

condition was not serious when her statement was recorded. He further

stated that when the deceased was brought to GMC, she was on oxygen

which was removed on his direction at the time when her statement was

recorded and after recording her statement, she was again put on oxygen.

16. PW-13 Deepa Hans stated that on 13.09.2011, she was posted as Lecturer

GMC Forensic Medicines, Jammu and on the said date, she conducted

autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-Anita Devi and sent viscera for

chemical analysis and report was received on 12.11.2011 and as per FSL

report, the cause of the death of the deceased was consumption of

Aluminium Phosphide poison. She proved the post-mortem report. During

cross examination, she stated that as per FSL opinion, after consumption of

poison, the deceased-Anita Devi died at an early stage and consumption of

aforesaid poison was bound to result in immediate fall of blood pressure and

other related consequences and in that circumstances, it was not possible for

Anita Devi, to make any kind of statement as to why she consumed poison.

17. PW-12 Rohit Koul stated that on 21.09.2011 he was posted as Assistant

Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu. In connection with the viscera of Anita Devi,

three sealed packets marked as Bottle Nos. 1 to 3 were forwarded to the

laboratory. After chemical examination, Aluminium Phosphide was detected

in the aforesaid packets.

18. PW-14 Nazir Ahmed stated that he in the year 2011 was posted as SHO

Police Station, Miran Sahib. On receipt of statement of deceased, the FIR

No. 95/2011 for commission of offence under section 307 was registered and

on 13.09.2011, Anita Devi died. He prepared the seizure memo of the dead

body, clothes and receipt of the dead body. He recorded the statements of the

witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. The site plan was also prepared by him.

He got the statement of the deceased Anita Devi attested through Dr. Sudhir

Singh. He proved the offences under section 302 and 201 RPC against the

accused and produced the charge sheet in the court of law. During cross

examination, he stated that it has not come in his investigation that in whose

presence the accused administered poison to the deceased because he could

not find any proof on the spot. He also did not enquire as to from where the

poison was purchased. It is wrong that Head Constable, Jangi Ram produced

the statement of the deceased in the Police Station on 13.09.2011. He went

to the hospital on 12.09.2011 after the statement of the deceased was

recorded and recorded the statement of HC Jangi Ram on 13.09.2011. He

recorded the statement of PWs Sarwan Singh, Rajesh Kumar on 24.09.2011

and Ajay Kumar on 02.10.2011 and also recorded the statement of Dr.

Sudhir Singh on 16.09.2011. He had given the statement before him that the

patient was fit for making statement and her statement was recorded in his

presence. He never gave such statement that he had attested the statement of

the deceased. He never enquired from Jangi Ram, Head Constable as to why

did he not obtain the signatures of the witnesses or legal heirs of the

deceased on her statement. There was delay in getting the statements of the

witnesses recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C as they appeared before him

quite late for recording their statements. He expressed ignorance as to

whether the deceased was referred from Gandhi Nagar Hospital to GMC

Hospital in serious condition. He did not seize any record of the said hospital

and as such, he cannot say as to whether the deceased was fit to make

statement when she was admitted in Gandhi Nagar Hospital. He did not

make any effort to find out the lady with whom the accused was alleged to

have illicit relations, but the prosecution witnesses Mangal and Chamail

Singh revealed about it before him.

19. PW Muzaffar Iqbal Khan stated that he was posted as Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, R. S. Pura and he recorded the statements of witnesses under section

164-A Cr.P.C.

20. The respondent has also produced two defence witnesses in his defence i.e.

DW- Sukhdev Singh and DW Isha Chowdhary

21. DW-1 Sukhdev Singh stated that on 12.09.2011, he received a telephonic

call from the accused that the deceased had consumed something and she

was lying near hand pump, Bus Stand Miran Sahib and he asked him to take

her to the hospital. He further stated that the relations between the accused

and the deceased were cordial.

22. DW-2 Isha Choudhary (daughter of the deceased) too has stated that

relations between her parents were cordial and they never quarrelled with

each other. She also stated that the signature appended upon the statement

(Ext. P JR/1) of the deceased does not belong to her mother. In cross

examination, she stated that it is wrong that she is making statement in order

to save her father from the legal punishment.

23. This is the whole evidence led by the parties before the learned trial court.

As is evident from the prosecution story, the whole case of the prosecution is

based upon the dying declaration. There is no direct evidence against the

respondent. Besides dying declaration, the prosecution has also made an

attempt to prove the motive behind the murder of the deceased i.e. the illicit

relationship between the respondent and one lady.

24. In order to prove the allegations against the respondent, it was the duty of

the prosecution to prove the dying declaration beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is to be seen whether the dying declaration was made by the deceased in a

free state of mind or not. There are two important witnesses i.e. PW Jangi

Ram and PW Dr. Sudhir Singh so far as the dying declaration is concerned.

A perusal of ExTPW-JR-1 reveals that there is no attesting witness to the

dying declaration except PW Dr. Sudhir Singh and as per the statement, the

same has been attested on 12.09.2011. PW-Jangi Ram made an application

to the medical officer seeking his opinion for the purpose of recording the

statement of the deceased. A perusal of the docket ExtP-JR reveals that there

is endorsement that the patient is fit for statement. The said docket was

addressed to medical officer but in the evidence, it has come on record that

PW-Dr. Sudhir Singh was never the medical officer. Further, the statement

of the deceased has been attested by Dr. Sudhir Singh. Dr. Sudhir Singh in

his deposition has admitted that his statement was recorded on 16.09.2011

but in his statement, it was not mentioned that he had attested the statement

of the deceased. In this context, the statement of PW-12 Nazir Ahmed is

very relevant as he has categorically stated that he got the statement of Anita

Devi attested through Dr. Sudhir Singh on duty and it was got attested by

him personally. This raises doubt about the attestation of the statement of the

deceased as the statement was recorded by Jangi Ram but was got attested

by PW Nazir Ahmed. There is no explanation as to why the statement of the

deceased was not got attested by Jangi Ram himself and it casts the doubt

about the recording of the statement of the deceased. Also it is not

understandable as to why Jangi Ram did not get the statement of the

deceased attested from the medical officer who was on duty and also got the

fitness certificate from Medical Officer. The evidence with regard to the

condition of the deceased at the time of making statement also raises the

doubt about the authenticity of the statement of the deceased as PW Dr.

Sudhir Singh on one hand stated that the deceased was brought in a serious

condition to the GMC Hospital and was kept on oxygen and on other hand

he states that the condition of the deceased was not so serious when her

statement was recorded. He further stated that when the deceased was

brought to the GMC Hospital, she was put on oxygen and that was removed

only for recording of her statement and after recording the statement, she

was again put on oxygen. The statement of Dr. Deepa Hans who conducted

the post-mortem of the deceased is also very relevant as she has stated that

the deceased had died at an early stage and consumption of poison was

bound to result in immediate fall of blood pressure and other related

consequences and in that circumstances, it was not possible for the deceased

to have made any kind of statement in this respect as to why she consumed

poison.

25. Thus, there is dispute with regard to the authenticity of the dying declaration

in absence of any witness to the dying declaration coupled with the fact that

the condition of the deceased was serious particularly when she was on

continuous oxygen support and the same was removed only for the purpose

of recording statement and in light of deposition of Dr. Deepa Hans, it would

not be safe to place reliance upon the said dying declaration to convict the

accused/respondent. From the statement of the Investigating Officer, it is

clear that the statement of PWs Swarn Singh and Rajesh Kumar were

recorded on 24.09.2011 whereas the statement of Ajay Kumar was recorded

on 02.10.2011 and the occurrence is of 12.09.2011 meaning thereby that

there is delay in the recording of the statement of the said witnesses and the

only explanation by the Investigating Officer is that they came late to him

for recording their statement. It needs to be noted that the deceased was

initially taken to Gandhi Nagar Hospital from where she was referred to

GMC Hospital and no record has been procured from Gandhi Nagar

Hospital with regard to the status of the patient and it also creates doubt

about the fitness of the deceased to make statement.

26. Another important issue is that PW Tilak Raj has categorically stated that the

husband of the deceased called him on phone and he told him that his wife

had consumed something and driver has alighted her from bus at Miran

Sahib and she was lying there unconscious. He went to Miran Sahib and

then he and the accused brought her to Gandhi Nagar Hospital from where

she was referred to GMC Hospital. This statement of PW Tilak Raj is

corroborated by the statement of DW Sukhdev Singh who has also deposed

on similar lines with regard to the deceased lying unconscious at Miran

Sahib. The presence of Sukhdev Singh and Tilak Raj at the time of taking

the deceased to hospital has been admitted by the brother of the deceased

PW Mangal Singh. It is also required to be taken note of that as per the

dying declaration when the deceased asked the accused that he should take

meal from the hands of other lady, the accused mixed poison in the water

and made her to drink. In her statement, there is no whisper that when the

accused made her to drink poisonous water, she raised any protest or showed

any resistance and also it is not mentioned that the accused forcibly made the

deceased to drink poisonous water. This also makes the prosecution story

doubtful because as a normal course of human conduct, a person would not

consume a poison at the hands of some other person knowingly that he/she is

being poisoned unless the poison is mixed without the knowledge of the

person consuming it, which is not the instant case.

27. In this context, it is apt to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in

Meera v State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1879, para 19 of

the reporting read as under:

"19. There is another aspect of the matter for which there is no explanation. This is not a case where, according to the prosecution, the poison was administered to the deceased without her knowledge or suspicions. If one is to believe the dying declaration one fails to understand why the deceased would have swollen the poison given by her mother-in-law when she had seen, as claimed by her, that what was being given to her was poison meant for killing rats. All these facts create a serious doubt in our mind as to whether the dying declaration was really recoded in the manner alleged and also as to the veracity and truthfulness of the said dying declaration."

28. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the

learned trial court has meticulously examined the evidence and has rightly

come to the conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the commission of

offences under section 302 and 201 RPC. We have examined the judgment

of the trial court on the touchstone of law laid down by Apex Court and we

do not find that there is any perversity in the judgment impugned that

warrants interference.

29. For all what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in the

present appeal, as such, the same is dismissed.

                                                 (RAJESH SEKHRI) (RAJNESH OSWAL)
                                                        JUDGE          JUDGE
JAMMU
07.10.2022
Rakesh
                                      Whether the order is speaking:       Yes/No
                                      Whether the order is reportable:     Yes/No