STATE OF J&K Vs. RAVI KANT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the trial court)dated 30.11.2007 in File No.43/Sessions titled State V. Ravi Kant and ors., is the subject matter of challenge in this acquittal appeal. It may be noted that vide order impugned, the respondents were acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 498-A/34 RPC. However, the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 29.08.2012, granted leave to file an appeal only in respect of the charges under section 498-A RPC. This is how, this criminal acquittal appeal has come up for consideration before the Single Bench.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case before the trial court was that on 18.10.2003, a missing report was lodged in Police Station, Domana with regard to one Meena Kumari who was reported to be missing from her matrimonial home at Chandan Kikar, Muthi Camp. This was later on followed by registration of formal FIR on 19.10.2003 under sections 498- A/34 RPC, pursuant to written complaint made by Ramesh Chander, father of missing lady i.e, Meena Kumari. On 26.10.2003, the dead body of Meena Kumari was fished out from river Chenab at Thangri, Paragwal. During the course of investigation, PW-3 Neelam Kumari revealed to the police that the deceased Meena Kumari had been strangulated by the respondent Ravi Kant in his house on 16.10.2003. It is on the basis of statement of this witness coupled with Post Mortem report, disclosure statement of the accused and other material collected during investigation, the police ultimately produced the challan against the respondent Ravi Kant under sections 302,201,498-A RPC. Rest of the respondents were however, charged for commission of offence under section 498-A/34 RPC. The trial court framed the charges against the respondent Ravi Kant for commission of offence under sections 302/201/498-A RPC and against rest of the respondents under section 498-A RPC on 05.08.2004. since all the respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried, therefore, the prosecution was directed to lead its evidence.

(3.) With a view to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Satish Kumar, PW-2 Ramesh Kumar, PW-3 Neelam Kumari, PW-4 Parveen Kumar, PW-5 Satya Devi, PW-6 Madhu Kumari, PW-7 Dr. P.Angmo, PW-8 Dr. Tariq Azad, PW-9 Dr. C.S. Gupta, PW-10 Hoshyar Singh, PW- 11 Subash Chander, PW-12 Sham Lal, PW-13 Babu Ram, PW-14 Amar Nath Badyal, PW-15 Ashutosh, PW-16 Tirth Ram, PW-17 Nissar Hussain, PW-18 Janak Raj, PW-19 Mulkh Raj, PW-20 Om Prakash, PW- 21 Jugal Kishore, PW-22 Lal Mohammad, PW-23 Zakir Hussain and PW- 24 H.C.Bhagat.