LAWS(J&K)-2022-8-13

SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On August 31, 2022
SANJEEV KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dtd. 24/12/2013 and order of sentence dtd. 26/12/2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), in File No. 29/Sessions titled 'State versus Sanjeev Kumar and Anr' whereby the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each for commission of offence under sec. 302 RPC. Besides, the appellants have also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month for commission of offence under sec. 341 RPC.

(2.) The aforesaid judgement has been assailed on the ground that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has not taken into consideration the major contradictions and improvements made by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded before the trial court. It is also stated that the disclosure statement and recovery effected in the case are inconsequential and in no manner connect the appellants with the commission of crime. Besides this, it is also averred that the medical evidence produced by the prosecution runs contrary to the version of the eye witnesses. It is also stated that the Police for reasons best known to them, have suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused party.

(3.) Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently argued that the clothes of the witnesses i.e. PW-2 Sheela Devi and PW-3 Bikram Singh were not blood stained, which clearly demonstrates that PW-2 Sheela Devi and PW-3 Bikram Singh were not present on spot. It was further urged that the conduct of PW-3 Bikram Singh in not informing the Police about the occurrence is an unnatural conduct, which further raises doubt about the credibility of the said witness. Mr. Gupta further argued that the learned trial court has erred in law by placing reliance upon the statement of PW-4 Arjun Singh, as he himself had not seen the occurrence. He further submitted that there was no evidence against the appellant No. 2 and lastly that even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt still the appellants cannot be convicted under sec. 302 RPC but under sec. 304-II RPC, as in the instant case, single blow was inflicted upon the deceased and the deceased died after 12 days of occurrence.