MOHD. HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted for the commission of offence under Sec. 302 RPC vide judgment dtd. 1/1/2010 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000.00 vide order dtd. 6/1/2010, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as the "Trial Court" for short) in chargesheet titled "State of J&K Vs. Mohd. Hussain" arising out of FIR No. 90/2004 under Sec. 302/449 RPC registered with Police Station, Darhal.

(2.) Aggrieved of the judgment and order mentioned above, the appellant has come up with this appeal by urging that the prosecution case was based on the circumstantial evidence, and the circumstances which were alleged to be incriminating to the appellant have not been proved at all by the prosecution, therefore the appellant could not have been held guilty. It is contended by the appellant that none of the prosecution witnesses has proved the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant, and the learned trial court has acted upon the hearsay evidence for convicting the appellant.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution could not prove that the appellant made the disclosure statement in respect of the weapon of offence concealed by him, and the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed in respect of the factum of recovery of the weapon of an offence in different manner and in view of such discrepancies, no reliance could have been placed upon the disclosure statement allegedly made by the appellant and the consequent recovery of the weapon of offence. He has further argued that the wife of the appellant was killed by the militants and this fact has been brought on record by number of prosecution witnesses and the appellant too had furnished an explanation in his statement recorded under Sec. 342 Cr.P.C. that he was abducted by the militants and his wife was killed by them. He laid much stress that in view of the weak and incoherent evidence led by the prosecution, the appellant could not have been convicted by the learned trial court.