PARVEZ AHMED Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under sec. 302, read with sec. 34 RPC vide judgment dtd. 10/6/2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.7,000.00 vide order dtd. 10/6/2014 in case titled "State versus Parvez Ahmed and Ors" arising out of FIR No. 204/2011 of Police Station, Surankot.

(2.) The appellants have assailed the judgment dtd. 10/6/2014 on the ground that the learned trial court has wrongly placed reliance upon the statement of PW-Shaheen Akhter as there were material contradictions in her statement and she had made improvements in her statement before the trial court. Further that there were material contradictions in the FIR that was lodged by PW Showkat Hussain and the statement made by Showkat Hussain in the court. By referring to the statements of various witnesses, it has been stated that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel representing the appellants has vehemently argued that the statement of PW Shaheen Akhtar was full of contradictions and she has made improvements in her statement before the trial court and further that her testimony has not been corroborated by the medical evidence but the learned trial court instead of rejecting the same, has accepted the said improved statement of said witness for convicting the appellants. He further argued that the post-mortem report belies the false story projected by the complainant and other witnesses in the court. He also urged that all the witnesses are related and interested witnesses and their evidence is required to be appreciated cautiously, but the learned trial court has not done so and has fallen into grave error of law by relying upon the same for convicting the appellants. In nutshell, the arguments of senior counsel are that learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has ignored the material contradictions in prosecution evidence.