APDES PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dtd. 3/4/2007 and order of sentence dtd. 10/4/2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Budgam (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in case titled 'State vs. Apdesh Pratap Singh' in file No. 64/Sessions, whereby the learned trial court in charge sheet arising out of FIR No. 246 of 2001 of Police Station, Saddar under Ss. 302, 307, 309 RPC, has convicted the appellant for commission of offences under Ss. 304-II, 307 and 309 RPC. The appellant has been sentenced to seven years rigours imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000.00under Sec. 304-II RPC, in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo six months simple imprisonment. He has also been sentenced to seven years rigours imprisonment under Sec. 307 RPC. The appellant has been further sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500.00 under Sec. 309 RPC, in default of payment of fine, he had been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences awarded were directed to be run concurrently.

(2.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant on the ground that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and further that the Doctor as well as the Investigating Officer were not examined by the prosecution, as such the appellant was required to be acquitted.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case but despite that the appellant has been convicted by the learned trial court. It was also argued that the learned trial court had put some facts as incriminating evidence to the appellant which never formed the part of evidence led by the prosecution and in fact, the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet were put to the appellant. The learned counsel further argued that no witness has deposed that he had seen the appellant firing, as it was quite dark when the occurrence took place. Much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant that neither the Investigating Officer nor the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, were examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that there was no evidence that the appellant shot himself but still he was convicted for commission of offence under Sec. 309 RPC.