LAWS(J&K)-2004-5-12

KARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Decided On May 26, 2004
KARANJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-2-1998 propounded by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby he has convicted and sentenced Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, son of Dalip Singh, resident of Simbal Camp, Tehsil R.S. Pura, Jammu, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, under Section 302, RPC and one year's imprisonment under Sections 4/27 Arms Act.

(2.) The sheet anchor of the prosecution case stemming out of the record having trait in narration is that on 6-7-1992, Police Post, Miran Saheb, received an information from a reliable source at 2.10 p.m. that during celebration of marriage of daughter of Sangat Singh in his house at Simbal Camp Tikri, Ward No. 1, Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, accused, actuated with criminal intention, committed a murderous assault on one Ajit Paul Singh son of Ujagar Singh with a kirch in his possession and caused four injuries, one after the other persistenly, on the chest and the abdomen, as a result of which, the injured fell down in a pool of blood and had been removed to Hospital at Jammu. Hardeep Singh, Sub Inspector, Incharge, Police Post, Miran Saheb, entered the information in Daily Register and dispatched its copy of the Police Station, R.S. Pura, for registration of the case under Sections 307, RPC and 4/27 Arms Act. ASI Jaswant Singh and Constable Baldev Raj were sent for recording statement of the injured in the Hospital. Hardeep Singh, Sub Inspector, himself rushed to the spot. Soon after, the injured died in the Hospital and, consequently, the offence was converted from Section 307, RPC to Section 302, RPC. The dead body of the deceased was taken in custody by the Police and got its autopsy conducted from PW Dr. Anayat Ullah. A blood sample taken from the body of the deceased was handed over to Jaswant Singh, ASI, along with blood stained garments of the deceased, which were seized and sealed. The dead body was, thereafter, handed over to the father of the deceased to perform the last rite ceremonies. The accused came to be arrested by the Police and on his disclosure statement made during investigation on 9th July, 1992 while in Police custody, weapon of offence, 'kirch', was recovered was recovered at his instance from a Pully underneath a bridge at the Jammu R.S. Pura road, and seized and sealed it by the Police. After recording the statement of the witnesses and on conclusion of the investigation, the accused was finally sent up for trial for the alleged offence under Section 302 RPC. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence let in by the prosecution during the currency of the trial and after considering the rival contentions, found the accused guilty under Sections 302, RPC and 4/27 Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

(3.) Mr. Ajay Kotwal, learned counsel, debated 'that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, which persuaded the appellant to cause the murder of the deceased, Ajit Paul Singh by inflicting injuries with a kirch, in the house of Sangat Singh. Neither any scuffle had taken, place nor there was any provocation prior to the alleged commission of the offence attributed to the accused and, thus, completely improbabilize the prosecution version. The evidence of the witnesses relied upon by the trial Court is neither trustworthy nor credible to warrant the conviction, particularly, when the accused was at Poonch at the time when alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place. Even the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses does not find support from the medical testimony and other incriminating circumstances and, thus, entitles the accused to be acquitted of the offences with which he stands charged. Mr. B.S. Salatia, Senior AAG, on the other hand, argued that the direct evidence of the eye witnesses relied upon by the prosecution stands corroborated in material particulars by medical evidence. The evidence is consistent only with the hypothesis that the accused alone had killed Ajit Paul Singh, by causing injuries with a kirch, in broad day light and committed a cold blooded murder in the house of Sangat Singh during the celebration of the marriage of his daughter.