RATTANLAL Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 16.09.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Acquittal Appeal No. 41 of 1997 reversing an order of acquittal passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in Sessions case No. 42 of 1993.

(2.) The occurrence took place on 09.02.1993 at Village Rakh Muthi, Tehsil Akhnoor. The first informant and his family were about to take their dinner. Allegedly, the complainant party and the accused persons were not in talking terms as the family was said to have been responsible for spreading a rumour in the village that Appellant was maintaining illicit relation with the wife of his brother Kaku Ram. Appellant, Kaku Ram and their father Sunderdas allegedly came to the house of the complainant at 08.30 p.m. on the fateful day. Allegedly, Rattanlal asked PW-Subhash Chander, son of the deceased Santosh Kumar, to come out stating that Kaku Ram was calling him. Subhash Chander thereupon came out followed by the complainant Pamma Ram, deceased Santosh Kumar and PW-Ramesh Chander. Allegedly, when Subhash Chander reached the lane, Kaku Ram asked him as to why he had been creating problems and inflicted a drat blow on his forehead. Santosh Kumar (deceased) allegedly came forward to rescue his son, whereupon Sunderdas exhorted Rattanlal (Appellant herein) to kill him who in turn was said to have given a khukhri blow on him. A lathi blow was also said to have been inflicted on Ramesh Chandra by Sunderdas. An oral report was made to the Police Post Jurian at about 09.30 p.m., which was recorded as DDR No. 16, copy of which was sent to Police Station Akhnoor, whereupon a First Information Report under Section 307/34 RPC and 4/27 LA.A. was lodged on 10.02.1993. The deceased and the injured were medically examined and were thereafter referred to Sub District Hospital Akhnoor, wherefrom the deceased and Subhash Chander were further referred to SMGS Hospital, Jammu for treatment. Santosh Kumar succumbed to his injuries at the said hospital.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case examined a large number of witnesses. The learned Trial Judge, however, recorded a judgment of acquittal raising a number of doubts not only in regard to availability of sufficient light to identify the accused, but also having regard to the grave inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, inconsistencies in the evidences of two medical experts in regard to number, nature and place of injuries, inconsistencies in regard to the place of occurrence and non-examination of the investigating officer.