SONU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 30/12/2013 and 31/12/2013 respectively passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No. 33/Challan, titled "State of J&K Vs. Deepak Singh and others" whereby the learned trial vide judgment dtd. 30/12/2013 has convicted the appellant for commission of offences under Sec. 302 and 452 RPC and acquitted the other accused and vide order dtd. 31/12/2013 has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 for the commission of offence under Sec. 302 RPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for commission of offence under Sec. 452 RPC.

(2.) The appeal has been filed primarily on the ground that the learned trial court while convicting the appellant has not rightly appreciated the evidence.

(3.) Mr. R. K. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant solely on the basis of statement of one witness i.e. PW-Bhim Singh, whose testimony was full of contradictions and contrary to the case projected by the prosecution. He further laid stress upon the fact that PW-Bhim Singh denied to have made any application for registration of FIR, particularly when on the basis of this application duly signed by him, FIR in question was registered. He also laid stress on the fact that PW-Bhim Singh has attributed the disclosure statement to the appellant whereas the appellant had never made disclosure statement with regard to the weapon of offence. He further argued that the appellant could not have been convicted for commission of offence under Sec. 302 RPC, particularly when he was charged for commission of offence under Sec. 302/34 RPC and further that when other accused have been acquitted and act of committing the murder of the deceased has not been attributed to the appellant, he could not have been convicted by the learned trial court for commission of offence under sec. 302 RPC. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in case titled "Baikunth Nath Chowdhary Vs. State of Orissa" reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2337.