[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Daleep Singh S/O Gain Chand on 7 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRAA No. 22/2011
Reserved on: 29.01.2026
Pronounced on:07.02.2026
Uploaded on: 9.02.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
State of Jammu & Kashmir .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: - Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.AG
V/s
1. Daleep Singh S/o Gain Chand .....Respondent(s)
2. Som Raj S/o Thakur Dass R/o
Godhar Tehsil & District
Rajouri
3. Kanchan Bala W/o Amar Singh
R/o Narsingh-pura, Tehsil
Rajouri
Through: - Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Deeksha Handoo and Mr. J. A. Hamal,
Advocates
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per:Parihar-J
01. We have heard counsels for the parties at length and have carefully
perused the evidence led during trial. The present appeal assails the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in FIR No. 100 of 2005
relating to offences punishable under Sections 302/120-B RPC, whereby
the accused-respondents stood acquitted. It is well settled that in an appeal
against acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused
stands further reinforced by the judgment of the Trial Court. Interference
is warranted only when the findings recorded are perverse, manifestly
illegal, or based on a complete misappreciation of material evidence.
Where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the view
favourable to the accused must ordinarily be adopted.
02. The prosecution case rests mainly on three circumstances: (i) the
alleged extra-judicial confession of respondent No. 3 before a Panchayat;
(ii) the ocular testimony of PW-Anju Bala as an eye-witness; and (iii) the
alleged recoveries of weapons at the instance of the accused. Upon
appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court found all these circumstances to
be doubtful.
03. With regard to the alleged Panchayat confession, the Trial Court
noticed material inconsistencies. Different witnesses attributed different
versions to the statement allegedly made by respondent No. 3, Kanchan
Bala. In substance, she was alleged to have implicated the other accused
rather than confessing her own guilt. Such a statement does not amount to
a voluntary and unambiguous confession in the eye of law and, in any
event, could not be used as substantive evidence against the co-accused.
The delay of more than one month in convening the Panchayat and
allegations of police influence further eroded its evidentiary value.
04. As regards the testimony of PW-Anju Bala, the Trial Court found
serious infirmities. Her statement was recorded after considerable and
unexplained delay, creating scope for tutoring, particularly when she
remained in the custody of PW-Kashmir Singh, a police official related to
the deceased. She admitted that it was pitch dark at the time of
occurrence, making identification of the assailants doubtful. Her narration
that the deceased was attacked while unconscious and only on the head
was inconsistent with the post-mortem report, which recorded multiple
injuries on different parts of the body and ruled out strangulation. These
contradictions between ocular and medical evidence rendered her
testimony unsafe without independent corroboration.
05. The prosecution further failed to examine Rakesh Kumar, another
natural witness cited as having witnessed the occurrence. His non-
examination, without any satisfactory explanation, warranted an adverse
inference against the prosecution. Similarly, the alleged recoveries of
weapons were not proved in accordance with law, as the independent
witness to the recovery was not examined and another witness turned
hostile. Consequently, this incriminating circumstance also failed.
06. On the other hand, the defence challenged the genuineness of the
Panchayat proceedings and led evidence suggesting that the case was
falsely foisted. It was contended that the alleged confession was extracted
under police pressure and that there was no reliable evidence of motive or
of the presence of the accused at the scene of crime. These submissions
found favour with the Trial Court, which concluded that the prosecution
had failed to establish the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable
doubt.
07. A confessional statement is not admissible unless made before a
Magistrate, as mandated under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Under
Section 30 of the Evidence Act, before a confession can be used against a
co-accused, it must be strictly proved. What must be before the Court is a
confession proper and not a mere incriminating circumstance or
information. Further, such a confession is not evidence within the
meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act against the non-maker and can
be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence when other independent
evidence connects the co-accused with the crime. In the present case,
respondent No. 3 did not make any inculpatory statement; rather, her
alleged version before the Panchayat is exculpatory. Even if relevant, it
could not form the sole basis for conviction in the absence of
corroborative evidence.
08. In (2001) 9 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with
the testimony of a child witness, held that such evidence cannot be
rejected per se but must be scrutinized with care and caution. Conviction
can be based on the testimony of a child witness if it inspires confidence
and is free from tutoring. Corroboration is not a rule of law but a rule of
prudence.
09. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the testimony of PW-
Anju Bala was natural, cogent, and trustworthy, and that the delay in
recording her statement stood explained due to trauma caused by the
murder of her father and the custody of her mother. It was further argued
that motive was established and that witnesses to the Panchayat
proceedings consistently stated that the deceased was murdered pursuant
to a criminal conspiracy. It was urged that the Trial Court erred in
disbelieving the prosecution case.
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents supported the
judgment of acquittal, submitting that the Panchayat Nama dated
07.05.2005 came into existence more than a month after the incident and
was highly suspicious. It was argued that respondent No. 3 attributed the
act of killing to other accused and not to herself, rendering the alleged
confession inadmissible against the co-accused.
11.Upon re-appreciation of the evidence, the prosecution case before the
trial court was that respondent No.1 was allegedly having illicit relations
with the sister of respondent No.3, which were not approved by the
deceased. This allegedly led to misgivings between the deceased and his
wife, respondent No.1. It was further alleged that respondent No.1 later
confided with the co-accused regarding the conduct of the deceased and,
in order to eliminate him, entered into a criminal conspiracy to affect his
killing. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, during the intervening night
of 30th and 31st March, 2005, while the deceased was sleeping in his
kitchen, he was done to death by the accused by inflicting injuries with
sharp and blunt weapons.PW Anju Bala and PW Rakesh Kumar the minor
children of the deceased were stated to have witnessed his killing.
However, it emerges from the record that PW-Anju Bala was kept on
suparadnama of PW-Kashmir Singh, a police official who was related to
the deceased, without any cogent justification, despite the availability of
other close relatives. This circumstance lends credence to the defence
contention that the said witness was susceptible to tutoring.
12. PW-Anju Bala admitted that it was pitch dark and that she was in
another room with her mother, while the deceased was in the kitchen. Her
version of having witnessed the assault, including strangulation, stands
contradicted by medical evidence, which records multiple injuries and
rules out strangulation.
13. Significantly, PW-Anju Bala disclosed for the first time, after twenty-
two days of the incident that she had witnessed the occurrence, despite
having informed her uncle PW Krishan Lal on the very next morning that
the deceased had been killed by someone. During this intervening period,
she remained in the company of PW-Kashmir Singh. No explanation has
been offered for such delay. The non-examination of PW-Rakesh Kumar,
allegedly another eye-witness, further weakens the prosecution case.
14. Once the testimony of PW-Anju Bala is found unreliable, the
prosecution case collapses, as the alleged disclosures and recoveries have
not been proved. Though the deceased died due to multiple injuries during
the intervening night of 30-31 March 2005, the prosecution failed to
establish that the respondents were responsible for causing those injuries.
15. The alleged motive is equally untenable. It surfaced for the first time
in the Panchayat Nama dated 07.05.2005 and finds no independent
corroboration. There is no reliable evidence of animosity between the
deceased and respondent No. 1. The Trial Court rightly disbelieved the
Panchayat Nama due to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses
supporting it.
16. In view of the glaring contradictions in the prosecution evidence and
the absence of proof regarding the complicity of the respondents, the Trial
Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The findings are based on proper appreciation
of evidence and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
17. We find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment
warranting interference. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any
compelling reasons to take a view different from that adopted by the Trial
Court. The judgment of acquittal is, therefore, affirmed by dismissing the
appeal.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
RAM MURTI
07.02.2026
