STATE OF J&K Vs. KAMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 26.08.2013 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur in case titled State v. Kamal Singh by virtue whereof the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') has been acquitted of charges under Section 302 RPC. Heard.

(2.) Prosecution story is that on 17.06.2011 information was received in Police Station, Basantgarh that dead body of deceased Sher Mohd. was noticed in river Ujh. This led to initiation of proceedings under Section 174 CrPC. It was revealed that the accused had murdered the deceased on 07.06.2011 to avenge the killing of his brother at the hands of accused who was involved in militant activities in the year 2003. This led to registration of case under FIR No. 21/2011 for offence under Section 302 RPC. The accused is alleged to have made a disclosure statement during investigation which led to recovery of an axe and a knife from Khodi Nallah at his instance. The investigation culminated in filling of charge sheet before competent Court which framed charges against accused under Section 302 RPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and prosecution examined 10 witnesses at the trial to establish complicity of accused in the alleged crime. Accused denied the incriminating circumstances emerging from prosecution evidence and) entered upon his defence. He has examined two witnesses in defence. On consideration of evidence adduced at the trial, learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur was of the opinion that the evidence brought on record did not even remotely connect the accused with the alleged crime. This conclusion is based on appraisal of the evidence adduced by prosecution which, according to learned Sessions Judge, falsified the prosecution version.

(3.) It appears that PWs Shamim Ahmed and Tejinder Singh, cited as eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence turned hostile at the trial. Both of them denied the factum of accused having assaulted the deceased-Sher Mohd. It is in their deposition that the deceased was grazing goats with them and he went missing after one of his goats was lost somewhere in the pasture. Thus, the mode of proof in the form of direct evidence fails to take off.