STATE Vs. RAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have considered the submissions of learned additional Advocate General in support of State's Acquittal appeal against judgment dated 31. 10. 2008 of learned sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby he has acquitted Ravinder singh alias Ricky and Harmeet Singh alias Sonu, who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 1 and 2, in the State appeal. According to the prosecution case, Kulbir Singh, a bachelor, was a regular visitor to the house of Smt. Gurdeep kour, his brother's widow. Ravinder Singh and Harmeet Singh, respondents, would suspect illicit relationship of their mother Gurdeep kour with Kulbir Singh and had accordingly time and again told him not to visit their house. Their requests had, however, no effect on him. Both the sons of Gurdeep Kour are stated to have thus connived with Tarlok Singh, respondent no. 3, their real maternal uncle (Gurdeep Kour's brother) to do away with Kulbir Singh. They, accordingly, administered poison mixed tea to Kulbir Singh and thereafter committed his murder by setting him ablaze in the midnight of 15th August, 2000 after pouring kerosene on him in the street outside their house. The prosecution had produced sixteen witnesses namely Zorawar Singh, Hazara Singh, Kuldip Singh, Jagat singh, Bhajan Kour, Rajinder Kumar, Dwarka Nath, Pyare lal, Janak Singh, Kamal Singh, Dr. C. S. Gupta, S. K. Razdan, rohit Koul, Rakesh Bamba, Rajinder Kumar Bakshi and anand Jain, to support its case.

(2.) BESIDES relying upon the solitary eye witness namely jagat Singh, the prosecution had sought support to its case from the Disclosure Statement of Ravinder Singhrespondent leading to the recovery of patka (head gear) and poison.

(3.) AFTER the close of the prosecution evidence, the trial court did not find any evidence against Tarlok Singhrespondent no. 3 and accordingly acquitted him vide its order of 18. 12. 2007. The case, however, proceeded against rest of the respondents. These respondents too were later acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, finding that the prosecution had failed to produce any reliable incriminating evidence against the respondents.