DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Conviction Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 2/4/2009 rendered by the court of Ld. Sessions Judge Reasi in file No. 44/Sessions titled State Vs. Fateh Singh & Ors, whereby, out of total 6 accused facing trial before the trial court, appellant only has been held guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 435 RPC, convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one (1) year and fine of Rs.10000.00, and in default of payment of fine appellant has been further directed to undergo imprisonment for five (5) months.

(2.) Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, appellant has assailed it's legality, propriety and correctness on the following grounds:-

(3.) Sh. Sachin Sharma Ld. Counsel for appellant has sought the quashment of impugned judgment of conviction dtd. 2/4/2009 by articulating arguments, that the trial court of Ld. Sessions Judge Reasi while passing impugned judgment has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in it's right perspective so far as it relates to the charge against appellant u/s 435 RPC as the trial court categorically held that there is no convincing evidence on record to convict all the accused with commission of offences attributed to them for charges u/ss 307/341/148/149 RPC r/w Sec. 4/27 Arms Act and acquitted the appellant alongwith other co-accused for the aforesaid charges. It is argued, that the trial court in the impugned judgment observed that there are so many infirmities in the prosecution case which law cannot afford to overcome, however, the Ld. Trial Court came to erroneous conclusion by holding appellant guilty of offence u/s 435 RPC, all the eyewitnesses are interested witnesses and known to the complainant who himself has admitted that there is personal animosity between him and the appellant, even otherwise the prosecution has failed to stand on it's own legs before the trial court to prove the guilt against the appellant. It is moreso argued, that the non-production of I/O has seriously prejudiced the appellant who has been denied opportunity to cross-examine the I/O, the trial court while passing the impugned judgment did not appreciate the fact that none of the witnesses in their depositions have mentioned the extent of loss suffered to the alleged bus which is the essence of Sec. 435 RPC, even otherwise if the prosecution evidence is read in consonance the ingredient of Sec. 435 RPC is not made out.