State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Raju Singh Alias Mangi
2023 Latest Caselaw 2142 j&K

                                                                    S.No.8


               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                             AT JAMMU


                                                CRAA No. 235/2014

State of Jammu and Kashmir                            .... Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through P/S Nowabad.

                    Through :- Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG.
         V/s

Raju Singh alias Mangi                                           ....Respondent(s)
S/o Niranjan Singh
R/o Gole Pulli, Talab Tillo, Jammu.
                    Through :- Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
                               JUDGMENT(Oral)

03.10.2023

Sanjeev Kumar-J

1. This appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir (now the Union

Territory of Jammu and Kashmir) is directed against judgment dated 28.12.2013

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu ["the trial court"] in

file No. 53/Challan titled "State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Raju Singh alias

Mangii" whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondent of offence under

Sections 302/452/34 RPC, 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Amit

Gupta, learned AAG to assail the judgment impugned, we deem it appropriate to

notice briefly the prosecution story.

3. On 1st September, 2001 at about 6:20 P.M. Police Station, Talab Tillo

received an information that some persons, namely, (1) Raju Singh, (2) Varinder

Kumar, (3) Raman Kumar and (4) Arun Kumar along with other accused

persons, after hatching criminal conspiracy and with common intention to kill,

had attacked a person inside the shop of one Bansi Lal at Gole Pulli, Jammu and

severally injured him. It was reported to the Police that respondent, namely, Raju

Singh had fired with pistol whereas other accused persons had given blows to the

said person with deadly sharp edged weapons and that the injured was lying in

the pool of blood. This information was transmitted by the Police Post, Talab

Tillo to Police Station, Nowabad and as a consequence whereof a case FIR No.

152/2001 for offence under Sections 307/148/149 RPC, 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act

was registered in the Police Station, Nowabad. Investigation was entrusted to in-

charge Police Station, Talab Tillo.

4. The I.O. rushed to the spot and got the injured lifted from inside the

shop of Bansi Lal and took him to hospital through flying squad for treatment.

The injured was admitted in hospital vide MLC No. 1382 dated 01.09.2001 in

the emergency ward. The I.O. prepared the docket for statement of injured but

the Medical Officer attending the injured wrote on the docket that the injured

was dead. The I.O. completed the requisite formalities, recorded the statement of

witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and got the post-mortem conducted on the

deceased etc etc.

5. The I.O. found the case proved against two accused i.e. respondent,

Raju Singh, and one Varinder Kumar alias Kaka, who as per the investigation

conducted, had committed the murder of the deceased. Challan was laid before

the trial court. The trial court after hearing prosecution and defence, framed the

charges against the respondent herein and accused Varinder Kumar for

commission of offence under Section 302/452/34 RPC read with Sections 3/25,

4/25 Arms Act. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed trial. During

trial, the statements of witnesses were recorded. While the trial was going on, the

accused Varinder Kumar absconded and was proceeded under Section 512

Cr.P.C.

6. With a view to sustain the charge against the respondent, the

prosecution produced PW Naveen Kumar, PW Harbans Gupta, PW Arun

Kumar, PW Mukesh Gupta, PW Munish Kumar, PW Ranjeet Singh, PW

Sidharth Sharma, PW Ajay Bali, PW Bua Ditta, PW Krishan Lal, PW Sarandeep

Singh, PW Karan Singh, PW Arun Kumar, PW S.H. Bhukari, PW Bindra Ram,

PW Shiv Kumar, PW Leela Devi, PW Jagdish Raj, PW Bansi Lal, PW Madan

Gopal, PW Barkati Begum, PW Shafiq Ahmed, PW Janak Singh, PW Ram Pal,

PW Vijay Kumar, PW Kirpal Singh, PW Tarsem Raj, PW Vishal Sharma, PW

Sukhbir Singh, PW Harvinder Singh, PW Suresh Kumar, PW Rattan Lal, PW

Parshotam Kumar Mengi (Dy. SP), PW Sukh Dev Singh SGC, PW Dr. Sanjay

Bhat, PW Bashir Massiah, PW Manjeet Singh, PW Vinay Gupta and PW Daleep

Kumar as witnesses.

7. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating

circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence were put to the

respondent and his statement under Section 342 Cr. P.C was recorded. The

respondent denied all the incriminating material and pleaded innocence. He,

however, produced DW Niranjan Singh as his sole defence witness.

8. The matter was considered by the trial court in the light of evidences

and material on record. The trial court came to the conclusion that the

prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable

doubt, as such, the respondent was entitled to a benefit of doubt. As a result, the

trial court acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him vide its

judgment of acquittal dated 28.12.2013 which the State has assailed before us in

this appeal.

9. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG has mounted his challenge to the

judgment impugned primarily on the ground that the trial court has, without

giving any cogent reasons, brushed aside a clear and unequivocal testimony of

eye witness PW Sarandeep Singh which is corroborated by the statement of

doctor who has given a description of the injuries received by the deceased

which caused his death.

10. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG fairly submits that most of the

witnesses, cited by the prosecution, have either turned hostile or made

contradictory statements.

11. Per contra, Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent submits that none of the prosecution witnesses have substantiated the

case of the prosecution that the deceased was killed by fire shots made by the

respondent using his pistol. He submits that none of the witnesses except PW

Sarandeep Singh have deposed anything incriminating against the respondent.

He submits that so far as PW Sarandeep Singh is concerned, his testimony has

not been rightly believed by the trial court because of his previous enmity and

litigation with the family of the respondent and also that his uncle, namely,

Ranjeet Singh, who as per the statement of PW Sarandeep Singh had witnessed

the crime along with him, has not supported his version.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

on record, we are of the considered view that the judgment passed by the trial

court, in the face of evidence on record, cannot be found fault with and is

required to be upheld. It is true that in a shocking incident that took place on 1 st

September, 2021 at about 6:20 P.M. in the shop of Bansi Lal, deceased Raju

Pandit was killed. As per the information received by the police and the

subsequent evidence collected during investigation, the respondent along with

one Varinder Kumar was found responsible for such killing. The statements of

other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Even on the basis of

disclosure statement made by the respondent, the weapon of offence i.e. the

revolver along with five rounds, four empty and one miss fire along with scooter

No. 5830/JK02 were recovered. Unfortunately, almost all the witnesses turned

hostile during the trial. The Additional Public Prosecutor subjected them to

cross-examination but could not elicit anything incriminating against the

respondent. The testimony of PW Sarandeep Singh was not believed by the trial

court for the reason that he was not an independent witness and had litigation

with the family of the respondent.

13. That apart, PW Sarandeep Singh in his statement claimed that the

respondent gave Kirpan blows to the deceased and Varinder Kumar alias Kaka

fired shots at the deceased. The prosecution case is, however, to the contrary. As

per prosecution version, the shots were fired by Raju Singh and injury by kirpan

was caused by Varinder Kumar. He witnessed the occurrence along with uncle

PW Ranjeet Singh, but when Ranjeet Singh entered the witness box, he did not

support the version of Sarandeep Singh. He claimed that he was not available in

Jammu on the date of occurrence. The trial court has also doubted the veracity of

statement of Sarandeep Singh on the ground that he was an eye witness to the

crime but was examined after two days after the occurrence without any

explanation.

14. There is another feature in this case which is also noteworthy. The I.O.

who investigated the matter could not be produced before the trial court due to

his ailment. It has come on record that the I.O. could not be examined even on

commission as he was totally paralysed and was not in a position to make any

statement. Had I.O. been in position to come to the Court, perhaps some of the

contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence could have been

explained. Unfortunately this, too, did not happen.

15. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the evidence brought on record

was not sufficient to connect the respondent with the commission of the crime.

The trial court, therefore, was left with no option but to let off the respondent

with benefit of doubt.

16. We, hearing an appeal against acquittal, cannot take a view different

from one taken by the trial court particularly when the evidence on record is

insufficient to connect the respondent with the commission of crime i.e. murder

of deceased, namely, Raju Pandit. Law is well settled that in an appeal against

acquittal, if the appellate Court, on evaluation of evidence, is of the opinion that

two views are possible, the appellate Court would take the view which favours

the accused.

16. Needless to say that it is golden principle of criminal jurisprudence

that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and this

presumption of innocence gets fortified by his acquittal by the trial court.

17. Keeping in view the parameters of law in respect of interference with

the order of acquittal in appeal, we too are left with no option but to concur with

the view taken by the trial court. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this

appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                   (Mohan Lal)                        (Sanjeev Kumar)
                                     Judge                                 Judge

Jammu:
03.10.2023
Neha-1


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