GAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are very fully stated in the judgment of the Court of Sessions, Jammu, and can be readily pursued therein. As remarked by both the lower Courts in their judgments the question whether the offence of which the appellant has bean convicted has been brought home to him or not depends on the weight to be attached to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Dewan Chand and Balya. For, if the accused did go to. Nikka's house as is deposed to by Dewan Chand then it becomes difficult not to accept Nikka's account as to what he did there. Likewise if Balya saw the appellant along with others supposed to be carrying the dead body of the unfortunate girl towards the place or in the direction of Dhubthan from where her bones, hair, etc., were subsequently recovered, his complicity must be held to be established. After giving a most anxious consideration to the evidence I have come to the conclusion that it is somewhat unsafe to rely upon this testimony in view of the great delay made by the witnesses in coming forward and giving their statements during the investigation of the offence. Attempts have been made to explain these delays and they are not altogether vain. I am, however, after very mature consideration now of the opinion that their still remains a reasonable doubt to the benefit of which the appellant is entitled. I wish to add that I was a party to the judgment, of the Court of Sessions.

(2.) I would, therefore, accept this appeal and acquit the appellant.

(3.) I agree to giving the advantage of doubt to the accused appellant and accepting his appeal. As, however, I had upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence of the accused in my judgment, dated 8th Phagan 1983 as Judge, High Court, I think, I must explain the reasons which prevail with me now of coming to a different conclusion.