State of J & K vs Kundan Lal and Others

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.

Condi. (Cr.) No. 245/2014

For the reasons stated in the application coupled with the submissions made at bar, delay of 184 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

Condonation Application (Cr) No. 254/2014 is disposed of accordingly.

S.L.A.A. No. 265/2014

State has filed the instant application for seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 31.12.2013 passed by learned Principal

Sessions Judge Jammu in case titled State v. Kundan Lal by virtue whereof respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') stands acquitted of

charge under Section 302 RPC. The prosecution case Is that on 22.04.2011 patrolling party of Police Station R.S. Pura was on patrol duty in the

town. ASI Mushtaq Ahmed received a source information that the dead body of Sham Dass s/o Lakshman Dass was lying in his house with

multiple injuries on his body. He forwarded a docket to Police Station which led to registration of case under FIR No. 47/2011 at P/s R.S. Pura

for commission of offence under Section 302 RPC. The investigation ensued. The accused Kundan Lal son of deceased Sham Dass, posted as

Cook in 18th Bn. IRP, was found responsible for having committed the murder of deceased. Allegedly, after his arrest, the accused made a

Disclosure Statement leading to recovery of a blood-stained knife from his bedroom. The investigation revealed that the deceased had four sons

and he was being looked after by his son Balmukund. Since the deceased wanted to give his share of land to Balmukund, the accused developed

hostility against him and on 22.04.2011 the accused lent the Motor-cycle of his brother on the pretext of going to his place of duty, instead he went

to the house of his sister at Krishan Nagar, returned back after some time, parked his Motor cycle in the lane and went inside the room of his

father who was alone at that time. Allegedly, the accused inflicted injuries on him with a knife and also strangulated him to death. Thereafter, he

escaped from the spot on Motor Cycle. He stayed in the house of his relatives while the Motor cycle was parked in the house of his brother. In the

evening there was a commotion in the village that the deceased had been murdered. The accused went to his home from where he escaped.

Investigation culminated in filing of charge-sheet against the accused who pleaded not guilty to charges framed against him under Section 302 RPC.

Prosecution adduced evidence at the trial.

Heard. Motive for the crime was alleged to be greed. Deceased, who lived with his son Balmukund, had sold land for a consideration of Rs.

3.00 Lacs. The accused resented it and wanted to grab the entire property of his father. Since the deceased did not yield to the designs of

accused, the accused allegedly committed his murder with a knife. Prosecution adopted two modes of proof to discharge its burden. The direct

evidence mode comprised of PW(s)-Kundan Lal and Vijay Kumar stated to be eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence. PW-Kundan Lal is the

son of deceased. However, he expressed ignorance about the occurrence. PW-Vijay Kumar was an independent witness but he too declined to

support the prosecution version. Both were declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution. Nothing substantial has been elicited from their

testimonies to lend support to prosecution case. The second mode of proof is the Disclosure Statement attributed to accused allegedly leading to

recovery of weapon of offence. PW(s) - Labha Ram and Garu Ram are the two attesting witnesses to Disclosure Memo who turned tables on the

prosecution by resiling from their versions before Police. They too have been declared hostile to prosecution. These witnesses are also witnesses

to recovery of weapon of offence but they have not supported the recovery. It is indeed shocking that out of twenty-nine witnesses examined at

the trial, not a single witness including the son and grand-daughter of deceased supported the prosecution case. These witnesses, in one voice,

denied having knowledge about the alleged occurrence. There being no incriminating circumstances in prosecution evidence against the accused,

nexus of accused with the alleged crime cannot be said to have been established. Learned Sessions Judge was right in observing that there was not

even an iota of incriminating evidence against the accused. On perusal of the impugned judgment we find no reason, much less a substantial and

compelling one, to take a different view. There being no merit in appeal, S.L.A.A. is declined. Resultantly the appeal fails and is dismissed.