STATE OF J&K Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17 -08 -1999 propounded by learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, whereby he has acquitted Lal Singh, accused, for offence under Section 307 RPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution depicted in narration is that on 12th February, 1993, Ajay Kumar with his brother Manoj Kumar and father Vidhya Dhari was sitting on their shop located in Ward No. 2, Kathua, when Lal Singh alias Guchu arrived on his scooter at 7.30 p.m. and enquired as to why they have not closed their shop in response to a call given by Hindu Maha Sabha. On this, Manoj Kumar immediately retorted that it is their wish that they may or may not close the shop. The accused got irritated, took out the iron rod lying beneath the mat of the scooter and gave a blow on the head of Manoj Kumar, as a result of which, he sustained injuries, fell down and became unconscious. The accused, however, managed to escape from the spot after committing the offence. The injured was removed to hospital for treatment. A report to this effect, however, came to be lodged by Ajay Kumar with Police Station, Kathua, which led to the registration of a case under Section 307 RPC and investigation ensued. After the conclusion of the investigation, challan against the accused came to be presented to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and the accused was charge - sheeted for the offence under Section 307 RPC. The CJM committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Kathua. The trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing rival contentions of the parties, held the evidence qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any pale of doubt and, consequently, recorded his acquittal vide order dated 17 -08 -1999.

(3.) MR . K.S. Johal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant -State, vehemently urged that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. The evidence provided by the injured, his brother and the father was consistent in material particulars and proved the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. The trial Court, however, has not relied upon the evidence of the related witnesses and whittled down their evidence by branding it as interested, tainted and uncorroborated with any independent testimony. That the prosecution case is consistent only with the hypothesis that it is accused, and the accused alone, who had committed the offence by assaulting Manoj Kumar with an iron rod on his head on the alleged day of occurrence. Whereas Mr. V.R. Wazir, learned counsel appearing for the accused -respondent, stated that there being no sufficient evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of the crime, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence, being uncorroborated with the independent witnesses, and acquitted the accused.