Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Through P/S Gool, Ramban vs Mohd. Farooq on 18 July, 2017
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Sanjeev Kumar
Regular list
Item No. 15
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SLAA No.3/2017
c/w
Condl(CR) No.4/2017
Date of order: 18.07.2017
State through P/S Gool, Ramban
v.
Mohd. Farooq
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For the Appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. R S Jamwal, Dy. AG
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Irfan Khan, Advocate.
Mr. Rahul Raina, Advocate.
i/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No
Press/Media
ii/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No
Digest/Journal
Per-Alok Aradhe, J:-
Conld(CR) No.4/2017:-
For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, we find that sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 185 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is made out. Accordingly, delay of 185 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is condoned.
In the result, Condl(CR) No.4/2017 is allowed. SLAA No.3/2017 c/w Condl(CR) No.4/2017 Page 1 of 4 2 SLAA No.3/2017:
Heard on the question of admission. This application has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Trial Court by which the respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the RPC and 7/27 of the Arms Act.
2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that the respondent shot dead his wife with his service rifle on 31.07.2010. On first information report being lodged, the police authorities conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondent for commission of offence under Section 302 RPC and 7/27 of the Arms Act.
The Trial Court after meticulous appreciation of evidence on record vide impugned judgment dated 15.03.2016 has acquitted the respondent of the offence alleged against him.
3. Mr. R S Jamwal, Dy. AG submitted that the Trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting the respondent of the offence alleged against him. It is, further, submitted that there is sufficient material on record to convict the respondent and the case against the respondent was SLAA No.3/2017 c/w Condl(CR) No.4/2017 Page 2 of 4 3 established by adducing the documentary as well as oral evidence on record. It is also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its true and correct perspective. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondent have supported the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution produces as many as 4 eye-witnesses, namely, PW-1, Shahjahan, PW-2, Safeena Begum, PW-7, Praveena Begum and PW-8, Shah Begum as eye-witnesses. It is pertinent to note here that eye witnesses have been declared hostile and they have not stated anything incriminating against the respondent even in their lengthy cross-examination. It is also pertinent to mention here that the rifle which was seized at the time of occurrence and the weapon which was examined by the FSL, Jammu bears different numbers. The investigating officer in his evidence has stated that he had seized the rifle from the respondent with 26 live bullets in its magazine and one in SLAA No.3/2017 c/w Condl(CR) No.4/2017 Page 3 of 4 4 its chamber while as the magazine which was examined by the Scientific Officer, R S Jamwal was empty thereby making prosecution story doubtful. From the statement of Shiban Lal Bhat, Assistant Scientific Officer, Fingerprints, FSL Jammu, it is evident that no fingerprints of the respondent were found on the seized weapon and magazine. Thus, there is no material available on record to connect the respondent with the alleged offence. The Trial Court on the basis of the meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the evidence beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. It is well settled in law that even if on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, one which favours the accused has to taken.
4. In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in the application for grant of leave to file appeal. Accordingly, the same fails and is hereby quashed.
( Sanjeev Kumar ) ( Alok Aradhe )
Judge Judge
Jammu
18.07.2017
Raj Kumar
SLAA No.3/2017
c/w
Condl(CR) No.4/2017 Page 4 of 4