State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Ashok Kumar And Others

Rajesh Sekhri, J

This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 13.05.2016 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [‘trial Court’], in case titled ‘State v. Ashok Kumar and others’, in File No.212013, arising out of FIR No.50/2005 of Police Station, Domana for offences under Sections 307/382/34 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (‘RPC’) and 3/25 &7/25 of Arms Act, vide which, respondents came to be acquitted.

The case set out by the prosecution, in the trial Court, is that on 18.03.2005, complainant,PW-3-Rashpal Singh lodged an oral report at Police Station, Domana alleging inter alia that while he along with Bishan Singh, Balbir Singh, Pal Singh, Parveen Singh, Parshotam Singh and Gansham Sharma were on their way in Scorpio bearing Registration No. JK02 X-0031, after attending the Court proceedings in District Court, Jammu, the respondents/accused, while moving in a vehicle bearing Registration No. PB08AE-3497 (Qualis) attacked them at Muthi-Akalpur Road and accused Sanjay Kumar and Janak Singh fired upon them with their double barrel rifle in furtherance of common criminal intention to kill them. On the receipt of this report, aforesaid FIR No.50/2005 came to be registered and investigation came into vogue. The investigating officer after completing legal and statutory formalities laid a final report in terms of section 173 Cr.P.C. against the respondents.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 came to be charged for offences under Sections 307/34 RPC by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on 18.10.2008, whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 were absconding and proceedings under Section 512 Cr.P.C were initiated against them. Prosecution on denial of charges by respondents No. 1 and 2, examined eight witnesses and vide order 04.01.2012, they came to be acquitted for want of evidence.

Subsequently, respondent No.3-accused-Janak Singh surrendered and came to be charged by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu on 07.12.2012 for offences punishable under Sections 307/382/34 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act, whereafter aforesaid case came to be transferred to the trial Court. Respondent No. 3-Janak Singh pleaded innocence and claimed trial. He laid a motion in the trial Court that he did not want to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, already examined by the prosecution in his absence. His statement to this effect was recorded by the trial Court on 09.12.2013, however, prosecution examined PW-9-Ravi Kumar in addition to the evidence already produced by it.

A brief resume of the prosecution evidence is as under:

PW-3 Rashpal Singh is the complainant. He has stated that except accused Sanjay Kumar and Janak Singh, rest of accused were not known to him. On 18.03.2015, while he was returning home at about 3:30 PM, his vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02X-0031 was chased by a red coloured Qualis vehicle at Patta Chungi from Malpur and said vehicle, after over taking his vehicle hit a scooter being driven by a girl. The occupants of the Qualis after getting down of their vehicle fired upon his vehicle. The informant goes on to state that due to firing, the occupants of Scorpio vehicle, in which, he was travelling took refuge under the seats and since an army vehicle was parked nearby accused Sanjay Kumar and Janak Singh fled away from the spot on a Scooter while accused Sanjay Kumar continued with firing. The front screen of his vehicle was damaged. He lodged telephonic information with SSP-Kamal Saini and subsequently he lodged FIR (Ext.P08) with Police Station, Domana. Complainant-PW-3 also stated that his brother was killed by accused Sanjay Kumar in the year 1994 and since then accused-Sanjay Kumar has been threatening him for deposing against him because accused Sanjay Kumar came to be convicted on his deposition and this was motive behind the attack on him.

PW-4 Gansham reflected his ignorance about the occurrence and was declared hostile by the prosecution. He has stated in his cross examination that 5/6 shots were fired from a vehicle bearing Registration No. PB08-AE-3497. He denied his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has stated that occupants of vehicle bearing Registration JK02-X-0031 (i.e. vehicle of the complainant) had also resorted to cross firing.

PW-5-Parveen Singh also reflected his ignorance about the occurrence and was declared hostile. He was cross examined by the prosecution and has reiterated that on 18.03.2005 neither accused had chased their vehicle nor fired upon them. He also denied his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

PW-6-Pritam Singh has not stated anything incriminating against the accused/respondents as he stated that in the year 2005, some persons parked their vehicle ahead of the vehicle of Angrez Singh and fired upon their vehicle. While he was driving the vehicle, but none was injured and he could not recognize the assailants. He has not been declared hostile by the prosecution.

PW-7-Kuldeep Sadhu, PW-8-Suresh Singh and PW-9-Ravi Kumar have also reflected their ignorance about the occurrence.

PW-10-Inspector Ahmed Din is the investigating officer. He has recorded statement of the complainant and some of the witnesses. He has admitted the contents of the complaint lodged by the complainant.

This is all about the prosecution evidence.

Respondents/accused were subjected to examination in terms of Section 343 Cr.P.C whereby they pleaded false implication and did not prefer to lead any evidence.

Learned trial Court, having marshaled, analyzed and examined the prosecution evidence has acquitted the respondents on the ground that prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.

The appellant-State has assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal, primarily, on the conventional ground that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective. According to the appellant, learned trial Court has fallen into a serious error of law, as the prosecution evidence does not suffer from any serious infirmity or contradiction.

Having heard the rival contentions and perused the file, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances attending the present case as also the law governing the field.

Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the grounds urged in the memo of appeal.

It is pertinent to note at the outset that prosecution, in the present case, has examined eight witnesses, out of which, seven witnesses turned hostile. The informant, PW-3-Rashpal Singh is the only witness who has somehow made an attempt to support the prosecution version by stating that while he was returning home at about 3:30 PM, a red coloured Qualis vehicle chased his vehicle from Malpur at Patta Chungi and after over taking his vehicle, the said Qualis hit a scooter and after getting down from the vehicle, the occupants of the said vehicle fired upon his vehicle. They took refuge under the seats and since there was an army vehicle parked nearby, respondents/accused-Sanjay Kumar and Janak Singh fled away on a scooter while accused Sanjay Kumar kept on firing. Statement of informant has not been supported by any other prosecution witnesses and even if the statement of informant-PW-Rashpal Singh is analyzed carefully, he has not specifically alleged anything incriminating against the respondents. I find myself in agreement with the observation of learned trial court that respondent-Janak Singh may be found to have been involved in having abetted the commission of offence, however, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, respondent-Janak Singh cannot be held guilty.

Having regard to what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any illegality muchless perversity in the impugned judgment. Considered thus, the present appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed and the impugned judgment is upheld. Record of the trial court, if any, be returned forthwith.