STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Vs. DALEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard counsels for the parties at length and have carefully perused the evidence led during trial. The present appeal assails the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in FIR No. 100 of 2005 relating to offences punishable under Ss. 302/120-B RPC, whereby the accused-respondents stood acquitted. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused stands further reinforced by the judgment of the Trial Court. Interference is warranted only when the findings recorded are perverse, manifestly illegal, or based on a complete misappreciation of material evidence. Where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must ordinarily be adopted.

(2.) The prosecution case rests mainly on three circumstances: (i) the alleged extra-judicial confession of respondent No. 3 before a Panchayat; (ii) the ocular testimony of PW-Anju Bala as an eye-witness; and (iii) the alleged recoveries of weapons at the instance of the accused. Upon appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court found all these circumstances to be doubtful.

(3.) With regard to the alleged Panchayat confession, the Trial Court noticed material inconsistencies. Different witnesses attributed different versions to the statement allegedly made by respondent No. 3, Kanchan Bala. In substance, she was alleged to have implicated the other accused rather than confessing her own guilt. Such a statement does not amount to a voluntary and unambiguous confession in the eye of law and, in any event, could not be used as substantive evidence against the co-accused. The delay of more than one month in convening the Panchayat and allegations of police influence further eroded its evidentiary value.