RAHIM Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment dtd. 14/2/2017 along with the order dtd. 17/2/2017, delivered by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur (hereinafter referred to as =the trial court'), by virtue of which the learned trial court has convicted the appellants for the commission of offences under Sec. 304 Part-I, 149 RPC and has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000.00 each for commission of offence under Sec. 304 Part-I. The appellants have been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000.00 for the commission of offence under Sec. 149 RPC. The appellant no. 2 has been further convicted for the commission of offence under Sec. 109 RPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.1,000.00. In default of the payment of the fine, appellants have been directed to undergo further sentence for a period of two months for each of the abovementioned offences. The other accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial court.

(2.) The judgment has been impugned by the appellants on the grounds that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and has wrongly convicted the appellants.

(3.) Mr. Rahul Pant, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Abdul Rouf Lone, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Investigating Officer has suppressed the true occurrence and despite the fact the appellant No.1 suffered serious injury on his nose and he remained admitted in Hospital, no effort was made by him to investigate the said part of the alleged occurrence. They further urged that the weapon of offence was already seized by Police as per the statements made by the prosecution witnesses but false disclosure statement was prepared and attributed to the appellant No.1, who could not have travelled a distance of 12 kms for the purpose of concealing the weapon of offence, after having suffered serious injury. It is also argued that no opinion of Doctor has been obtained in respect of use of weapon of offence in the commission of offence and in fact the deceased died as he fell on iron rods fixed on spot for fencing the forest.