State of JandK vs Kamal Singh

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.â€"State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 26.08.2013 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur in

case titled State v. Kamal Singh by virtue whereof the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') has been acquitted of charges under

Section 302 RPC. Heard.

Prosecution story is that on 17.06.2011 information was received in Police Station, Basantgarh that dead body of deceased Sher Mohd. was

noticed in river Ujh. This led to initiation of proceedings under Section 174 CrPC. It was revealed that the accused had murdered the deceased on

07.06.2011 to avenge the killing of his brother at the hands of accused who was involved in militant activities in the year 2003. This led to

registration of case under FIR No. 21/2011 for offence under Section 302 RPC. The accused is alleged to have made a disclosure statement

during investigation which led to recovery of an axe and a knife from Khodi Nallah at his instance. The investigation culminated in filling of charge

sheet before competent Court which framed charges against accused under Section 302 RPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and prosecution

examined 10 witnesses at the trial to establish complicity of accused in the alleged crime. Accused denied the incriminating circumstances emerging

from prosecution evidence and) entered upon his defence. He has examined two witnesses in defence. On consideration of evidence adduced at

the trial, learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur was of the opinion that the evidence brought on record did not even remotely connect the accused

with the alleged crime. This conclusion is based on appraisal of the evidence adduced by prosecution which, according to learned Sessions Judge,

falsified the prosecution version.

It appears that PWs Shamim Ahmed and Tejinder Singh, cited as eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence turned hostile at the trial. Both of

them denied the factum of accused having assaulted the deceased-Sher Mohd. It is in their deposition that the deceased was grazing goats with

them and he went missing after one of his goats was lost somewhere in the pasture. Thus, the mode of proof in the form of direct evidence fails to

take off.

In so far as circumstantial evidence is concerned, learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the witnesses to disclosure statement attributed to

accused and consequent recovery of axe and a knife at his instance were interested witnesses and could not be relied upon. He also noticed that

the independent witnesses, despite being available, were not associated with the recovery. Learned Sessions Judge has also taken note of the fact

that fatal injuries sustained by the deceased were opined to be caused by blunt portion of the axe which was not compatible with the prosecution

version that the accused wanted to kill the deceased to avenge murder of his brother. It is queer that despite two sharp edged weapons being

available with the accused, deceased was hit with the blunt end of the axe. While observing that the disclosure statement and recovery shown to

have been effected at the instance of accused were seriously doubtful, learned Sessions Judge was also of the view that in absence of substantive

evidence, mere recovery of an axe and a knife at the instance of accused was not sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused on charges of

murder.

Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the reasoning adopted by learned

Sessions Judge in arriving at the conclusion drawn by him on appreciation of evidence. We find no substantial ground to take a different view.

In view of the same, leave to prefer appeal against acquittal is declined. Resultantly, appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed.