STATE Vs. SURAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, Suram Singh, (hereinafter called 'the accused') was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Jammu. for offences under Sections 302. 451, R. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge. Jammu, on consideration of the evidence, found that the offences were not proved against the accused and acquitted him. The State has filed this appeal and challenged the order of acquittal. On 22-4-1975. after hearing the Advocate General and counsel for the accused, we made the following order :

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the prosecution case was that on the night intervening 13/14th May. 1972. at about 10. 30 p. m. the accused trespassed into the compound of Chuni Lai P. W. with a view to having illicit intercourse with his daughter, Mst. Guddi, P. W. , who lay asleep in the compound along with other members of the family. Suspecting the accused to be a thief, Mst. Gvanoo wife of Chuni Lai, who was still half-asleep raised an alarm. The alarm raised by her woke up her husband, Chuni Lai and her son. Balwant Rai. They got up and chased the accused wh0 had meanwhile left the spot lest he should be noticed or apprehended. The accused encountered Balwant Rai on the periphery of a nearby air-field which the accused could not cross in hurry, as it was fenced with barbed were. and, there, in desparation stabbed Balwant Rai in his abdomen with a knife. Balwant Rai succumbed to the stab injuries on the following day. Chuni Lai reported the matter to the police as our report Exp A-It is suggested that during investigation the police recovered a knife. Bush shirt and Pyjama stained with blood belonging to the accused pursuant to a disclosure statement made by him. It is also suggested that the accused made a confessional statement under Section 164, Criminal P. C. before Munsiff. Judicial Magistrate. Jammu but he subsequently resiled from it at the trial

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has negatived the connection of the accused with the occurrence which otherwise, he says, is not open to question. In view of the certain extraordinary features of the case and the extremely, unsatisfactory nature of the evidence we are inclined to share the conviction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as regards the innocence of the accused.