Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Th.Police Station City,Jammu vs Elpres Mattoo on 27 September, 2013
Author: Bansi Lal Bhat
Bench: Bansi Lal Bhat
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
Cr. Appeal No. 67/2012
Date of Decision: 27. 09.2013
___________________________________________________
State of J&K th. P/s City Jammu V Elpress Mattoo
Coram:
Hon'ble
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hasnain
Hasnain Massodi
Massodi,
odi, Judge.
Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Judge.
Judge.
i) Whether to be reported in
Press/Journal/Media : Yes/No
ii) Whether to be reported in
Digest /Journal : Yes/No
Appearing Counsel:
For the Appellant : Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. AAG.
For the Accused : Mr. Monish Chopra, Advocate.
Per Bansi Lal Bhat-
Bhat-J
1. This acquittal appeal is directed against Judgment formulated
by learned Sessions Judge Jammu on 18.02.2012 in case File
No. 04/Sessions titled State of J&K v. Elpres Mattoo alias
Katty in terms whereof respondent has been acquitted of the
charge punishable under Section 302 of RPC on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge.
2. The factual matrix attending upon the alleged murder of Vishal, based upon the written report of Mst. Ruby-mother of the deceased, as reflected in the charge sheet, may briefly be summarized as under: -
On 04.11.2006 at 7.30 pm deceased Vishal S/o Vijay 2 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 was in his house. Accused Elpres Mattoo alias Katty S/o Aziz Mattoo R/o Christian Colony Jammu arrived there and took him along. Since Vishal did not return, his mother Ruby set out for his search. She found the accused grappling with the deceased near the shop of a barber. Allegedly the accused picked up one pair of scissors from the barber's shop and repeatedly assaulted the deceased in his chest using the scissors as a weapon of offence. Thereafter, the accused escaped from the spot. The deceased fell down on the ground. Ruby evacuated him to GMC Jammu, in an auto- rickshaw, with the help of Bully and Arun. According to Ruby, Vishal told her that the accused had picked up the scissors from the shop of Sonu Barber and assaulted him in his chest. Upon reaching the Hospital doctors declared Vishal as "brought dead". Ruby attributed the assault on her son to an old enmity.
3. Case was registered on the basis of this report and investigation was embarked upon. It surfaced during investigation that some money was due to deceased from the accused and when deceased put up the demand, the accused picked up the scissors from the barber's shop and assaulted the deceased striking him in his chest by using the scissors as a weapon of offence. Thus, the deceased was eliminated as the major blood vessels in his body got punctured. The investigation revealed commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of RPC against the accused. Charge sheet was filed before ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu for judicial determination. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in terms of provisions of Section 205-D of CrPC.
3 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed under Section 302 of RPC against him and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined a host of witnesses including Mst. Ruby. Some of the prosecution witnesses were given up at the trial. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused came to be examined under Section 342 of CrPC to explain incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. Accused denied all the allegations emanating from prosecution witnesses and pleaded false implication. No evidence was adduced in defense.
4. On appreciation of evidence brought on record by prosecution, learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the prosecution contention that the testimony of Pw- Mst. Ruby was worthy of reliance to slap conviction upon the accused on the charge of murder. Learned Sessions Judge was also of the view that non-examination of Investigating Officer was fatal for the prosecution case. Consequently, accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him.
5. The factum of deceased Vishal having died an unnatural death, homicidal in character, is not in controversy. Testimony of Pw- Dr. Sangeeta Choudhary, who conducted Post Mortem Examination on the body of Vishal Mattoo establishes that the deceased had sustained following internal and external injuries:-
a. Incised punctured wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm deep in left side of chest vertically placed with upper angle acute and lower rounder 10 cm above left nipple 9.5 cm from midline and 9.5.cm below left clavicle;
b. Incised wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm on chin,
horizontally placed, bleeding present.
4 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012
c. Abrasion on left side of neck 6 cm. (red in
color)
In her opinion cause of death was hemorrhage and shock as a result of incised puncture wound caused by sharp edged weapon. The injuries were ante mortem and fresh in nature. She proved the Post Mortem Report marked EXTP-1 bearing his seal and signatures. She further deposed that on 27.11.2006 ASI Krishan Chand produced one scissors to elicit her opinion. She opined that the injuries mentioned in EXTP-1 could be possible with the weapon. She proved the report bearing her signatures and marked EXTP-2.On cross examination by defence counsel, the witness stated that the alleged cause of death, i.e., assault on 04.11.2006 at 7.45 pm at Prem Nagar, Near Church had been told to him by Police. Scissors were in open condition, i.e., in the shape of two separate blades at the time of infliction of wound. In her opinion such types of injuries were possible by a similar type of weapon. The injuries had caused damage to the left lung and major blood vessels on left side of the chest. She did not remember whether the scissors were wrapped in the cloth or lying open when produced before her. However the sketch was prepared by Police in her presence.
The fact that the death of deceased was occasioned on account of injuries sustained as noticed in the Post Mortem Report and that the injuries were ante-mortem is thus a fore- gone conclusion. Prosecution was required to prove authorship of crime attributed to accused. Three modes of proof have been resorted to by prosecution. Insofar as the modes relating to (1): discovery of weapon of offence 5 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 pursuant to disclosure made by accused and (2) dying declaration of deceased are concerned, prosecution has not laid stress on these modes of proof in view of the fragile evidence brought on record in this regard. Thus, reappraisal of evidence is limited to direct evidence only.
6. To reappraise the evidence brought on record by Prosecution reference thereto is inevitable. We accordingly advert to evidence adduced at the trial for arriving at finding in regard to guilt/innocence of accused irrespective of the reasoning adopted by trial Court to reject testimony of prosecution witnesses for basing conviction thereon.
7. Appreciation of Prosecution Evidence:
Pw- Mst. Ruby: is the mother of deceased Vishal. She deposed that on 04.11.2006 some persons had assembled at her house to condole the death of her mother. The accused arrived there at 7.30 pm and called out the deceased. The witness advised the deceased not to go in the company of accused as there was an altercation between them in the past relating to borrowing of money. The witness further deposed that since the accused owed money to deceased, he was harboring ill-will against him. However, deceased assured her he will return soon. As the deceased did not return for about 15 minutes, she got worried and went out to see her son. She found that some persons had assembled on the other side of the road. On crossing the road, she found the accused grappling with her son. She crossed Gujjar Nagar Shamshan Ghat Road and reached the spot where the vegetable shop of Pawan was located. She found the accused grappling with the deceased. By that time she had reached near the generator 6 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 where they were fighting. Meanwhile accused caused a strike with scissors in the chest of deceased and after assaulting the deceased he fled away towards the cremation ground. The deceased, who had fallen down on the ground, summed up courage and got up but could not keep standing and again fell down. The witness claimed that she signaled a motor-cyclist to stop his vehicle. Bully and Arun were riding the motor cycle. These two persons alongwith the persons present on spot lifted the injured Vishal and got him into an auto- rickshaw. Alongwith Arun she sat in the auto rickshaw with the deceased while Bully rushed to hospital on his motor cycle. The witness claimed that the deceased was speaking a few words and he told the witness that the accused had called him to settle the dispute in regard to money transaction but stabbed him with scissors. Thereafter deceased became speechless. Upon reaching the emergency ward of Hospital, the deceased was declared as "brought dead". The hospital authorities had informed the police and she rushed to Police Post Residency Road and filed written report scribed in her own handwriting. The witness testified to contents of report marked EXPW-R. The accused was also known as Kitty. The witness identified the scissors bearing mark-R as the weapon of offence. She further deposed that after Post Mortem examination body of deceased was delivered to the family for conducting last rites. She further deposed that she did not believe the local residents in branding the accused as a notorious character as the accused was a friend of deceased. Accused was a jail bird. On cross examination the witness stated that Vishal was born from her first husband and at the 7 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 time of occurrence he was residing with her. Earlier he lived with the accused for 2/3 years. Previously the accused and the deceased were good friends. The deceased had been telling her that the accused owed him Rs. 5/6 Lac. However she did not make statement to that effect before Police. Some persons including her sister-in-law -Praveen and Neena were in her house when the accused called out the deceased. Other ladies had come along Neena and they were previously not known to her. She left the house in search of her son while these persons were still in her house. She could not say whether the light was off at that time. She was holding the deceased in auto rickshaw but she did not know whether her clothes were soaked with blood. The road is located at a distance of eight houses from her home and the place of occurrence lies across the road. Traffic plies on road on both the sides. Arun and auto driver may not have heard the dying declaration of deceased as he was speaking at a very low tone and she was holding her ear close to his mouth. She admitted that the deceased had hired a room near the place of occurrence but he would mostly live with her or with his grand-parents. The place of occurrence was located in a small lane across the road. It was located in a very densely populated area and a vegetable shop, a barber shop and a karyana shop were located there. All the three shops were lying open at the time of occurrence. Karyana shop was being run by the cousin of accused. She was unable to say whether anybody had tried to intervene. She had seen the occurrence and identified the characters involved succinctly but she did not pay attention to the fact whether it was dark 8 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 at that time. Since she was in a state of shock, she did not pay heed to identity of people. Further that she had fairly seen the accused who, while escaping from the spot, passed by her. She had reached near the vegetable shop when the accused had struck her son with scissors. She did not identify weapon of offence as scissors which had been carried by the accused with him. This fact was disclosed by the deceased. The deceased had been struck in his chest as she arrived on spot. It appears that testimony of Mst. Ruby has been assailed to demonstrate that the deceased Vishal was born of her first husband, that he was a close friend of the accused and that he lived in a rented room near the place of occurrence. All the three reasons assigned to discard her testimony are irrelevant and do not go to the root of her testimony. It makes no difference that the deceased was born out of matrimonial alliance of Mst. Ruby with her first husband. The deceased was her son and break up of her marriage with her previous husband did not in any manner affect her relations with the deceased. Insofar as accused being a friend of deceased is concerned, it is admitted by Pw- Mst. Ruby that for some time deceased and the accused were good friends. She has assigned the reason for their falling apart. It is in her testimony that the deceased had told her that the accused owed Rs. 5/6 lac to him which he intended to recover. Testimony of Pw- Praveen reveals that the deceased had hired a room for his living but would often stay with his mother. She has further deposed that the deceased used to live in the company of accused at least five months before the occurrence and even betrothal of deceased had 9 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 been conducted in the house of accused. It is, therefore, established that the deceased and the accused were good friends in the past but they fell apart soon as the deceased wanted to recover the money due to him from accused. Pw- Praveen has clearly stated that the accused had called the deceased for settlement of accounts. On close scrutiny of the testimony of Pw- Mst. Ruby it comes to fore that the deceased was living with her at the time of occurrence as the mother of Mst. Ruby had died. This is apart from the fact that he had hired a room near place of occurrence for separate living. Therefore, it is futile on the part of accused to contend that the deceased was his friend and he had no motive to eliminate the deceased. Dispute in regard to settlement of accounts provided a good motive for the crime notwithstanding the fact that the deceased and accused enjoyed good friendship in the past. Testimony of Pw- Mst. Ruby has not been assailed on any other ground. The grounds for discarding her testimony do not in any way affect her credibility. The cross examination has created no dent in her testimony. She emerged stronger after cross examination. There is nothing in her testimony to demonstrate that her version is tainted, that she is an interested witness and that she had some motive for false implication of the accused. No enmity, animosity or oblique motive has been attributed to her for falsely implicating the accused. She, being the mother of deceased, cannot be expected to spare the real culprit and rope in an innocent as the author of crime. Her presence on spot is natural. She has assigned reasons for being panicky when the deceased did 10 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 not return even after 15 minutes of leaving home in the company of accused and expressed her concern for safety of deceased which prompted her to leave the home and come on the road while her visitors were still in her house. On finding the deceased lying on the ground in an injured state after the accused had stabbed him in his chest with scissors she enlisted help from by-standers and passers-by to remove the deceased to hospital. Pw-Arun has corroborated her version regarding removal of the deceased in an injured state to Hospital in an auto rickshaw. Her testimony lays bare that on reaching Hospital Doctors declared the deceased as "brought dead". She straightway went to Police Post Residency Road and lodged the report marked EXPW-R recorded in her own handwriting in Hindi Language. Pw- Raghunath Singh, the then Munshi of P/p Residency Road has deposed about lodging of FIR by Pw- Mst. Ruby. He recorded the report in Daily Diary dated 04.11.2006 as report No.20 at 10.30 pm. The report has been exhibited as EXTP-19/1. Lodging of report on the given date, time and place has not been questioned by accused. It is, therefore, established that FIR has been lodged within less than three hours of the alleged occurrence. Case under FIR No. 81/2006 was registered at P/s City Jammu on 04.11.2006 at 11.10 pm. Copy of FIR has been received by CJM Jammu on 06.11.2006, delay of one day being occasioned by intervention of Sunday. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that FIR has been lodged by none other than the solitary eye witness Mst. Ruby with great promptitude ruling out concoction or fabrication. The contemporaneous record corroborates the version of Mst.11 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012
Ruby and instills confidence in her version that it was the accused and none else who committed murder of deceased. Pw-Samuel: deposed that on 04.11.2006 at 8.30 pm he heard about shifting of deceased to hospital. He rushed to GMC Hospital Jammu. Ajay Paul accompanied him. On arrival at the hospital he learnt that Vishal had expired. The witness testified to contents of Seizure Memo in regard to body of deceased marked EXTP-1, Seizure Memo in regard to wearing apparel EXTP-2, and receipt in respect of dead body and marked EXTP-3. The witness further deposed that accused had made Disclosure Statement before Police to the effect that he had concealed the scissors in bushes at Christian graveyard and he could recover the same. He supported the Disclosure Statement marked EXTP -4. He further deposed that the Police team including the witness and Ravi Paul went to Christian graveyard, Prem Nagar, Jogi Gate where Police recovered the scissors in the bushes located near the Transformer. However, accused was not taken to the site of recovery of scissors. The witness identified his signatures on the Recovery Memo and supported the recovery receipt to the extent of pointing out of scissors by the accused on spot. Seizure Memo was marked as EXTP-5. He identified the scissors bearing mark-R. Same did not bear blood stains. The scissors were sealed on spot and the seal was placed on his Supurdnama vide EXTP-6.On cross-examination the witness stated that Police had reached the hospital within fifteen minutes of his arrival in hospital. He had not seen the occurrence and he did not tell the Police about it. Police had seized the body of deceased at that very 12 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 time though Seizure Memo(s) were prepared later. He had not informed the Police in respect of the occurrence. His statement was recorded twice or thrice but not on 4.11.2006. He signed the Disclosure Memo at the Police Post but put his signatures on Recovery Memo at the venue of recovery. The Memos were read over to him. He was conversant with Urdu and may not have heard about the recovery of scissors being made at the instance of accused when the memo was read over to him.
Pw-Ajay Paul Gill: deposed that on 04.11.2006 he accompanied Samuel to GMC Hospital Jammu. He witnessed seizure of body of deceased; clothes found on the body of deceased at the time of Post Mortem Examination, delivery of body to Samuel for last rites and identified his signatures on EXTP-1, EXTP-2 and EXTP-3. No question was put to witness in cross examination.
Pw-Neena: deposed that on 04.11.2006 in the evening she was present in the house of Mst. Ruby at Prem Nagar. Mst. Praveen and the deceased were also in the house. Meanwhile, accused arrived there, called the deceased and asked the deceased to accompany him. Mst. Ruby tried to prevent the deceased from going in the company of accused but the accused assured her that he would return only after two minutes. The deceased went in the company of accused. The witness claimed that he learnt of murder of deceased about fifteen minutes thereafter.
On cross-examination stated that she learnt about the murder of deceased after she returned to her house. Mst. Ruby and Mst. Praveen were staying there when she left the 13 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 house of Mst. Ruby. It was only about twenty minutes after she reached her home that she came to know about the murder of deceased. She went out on the road and left for the hospital. She had not stated before Police that after waiting for the deceased for about fifteen minutes Mst. Ruby had left the house to search for deceased.
Pw-Arun: deposed that on 04.11.2006 at about 7.30 pm he was returning from Gym riding his motor cycle. On reaching Prem Nagar Christian Colony he found an assemblage of people on the road. He stopped his bike and found Vishal Mattoo lying injured on the road near the vegetable shop. He alongwith others lifted the deceased and made him to board an auto rickshaw. He and Bully carried the injured to Hospital but he did not know what happened to Vishal thereafter. He deposed that nobody had stabbed the deceased in his presence. The witness was declared hostile to prosecution and on cross examination by learned Public Prosecutor he deposed that he had not seen the accused and the deceased having altercation; that he had not seen the accused picking up scissors from the barber's shop and striking the deceased with the same. Police had recorded his statement to that effect but he had made such statement after being threatened by Police. He did not support his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC from mark A to mark A-1. Mst. Ruby lived in his Mohalla. He had not seen Mst. Ruby when he lifted the deceased from the place of occurrence. He did not support his statement from mark B to mark B-1 but admitted that Mst. Ruby had not coerced him to make such statement. On cross examination by defense 14 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 counsel the witness stated that the deceased did not speak while he was being removed to Hospital. Questioned by Court the witness stated that the Police Officials had been persuading him to make statement about the occurrence but he had not made such statement.
Pw- Jagdish Raj: deposed that he was running a barber shop at Prem Nagar, Christian Colony. He hired the shop from Sikkam Mattoo who happened to be a brother of accused. The shop used to be functional from 9 am to 8 pm. However, in the event of cut in electric supply in the evening he used to close the shop at 6 pm. On 04.11.2006 at 7.45 pm he was not working in his shop. He was at his home at that time. He denied that he had dressed the hair of Police Official Qureshi in the evening. He also denied that the accused had removed scissors from his shop and assaulted Vishal Mattoo in his presence. The witness was declared hostile to prosecution and on being cross examined by Public Prosecutor he stated that Vishal Mattoo was not known to him. Accused was also not known to him. He disowned statement attributed to him under Section 161 CrPC bearing mark A to A-1, mark B to B-1. The scissors bearing mark-R did not belong to his shop. He did not support the identification memo of scissors bearing his thumb impression marked EXTP-4. The part of his statement bearing mark-c was made by him under pressure. On cross examination by defence counsel the witness denied that he had been detained in Police Lock up for ten days in connection with the instant case. However, he admitted that he was detained in City Police Station for two days and compelled to attend daily for ten days thereafter.15 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012
He has abandoned the shop at Prem Nagar due to fear of Police and shifted his business to Talab Khatikan. Pw- Praveen: deposed that on 04.11.2006 at 7.30 pm, while she was sitting in the house of Mst. Ruby, the accused arrived there and called the deceased to accompany him. The witness claimed that both she and Mst. Ruby tried to persuade the deceased not to go with the accused who did not enjoy good reputation but the accused told Mst. Ruby that he had to settle some accounts with the deceased. The deceased went in the company of accused but since he did not return for about fifteen minutes, Mst. Ruby left the house to search or him. The witness claimed that she too left for her house and she learnt about 1 ½ hours later that the accused had murdered the deceased by using scissors as weapon of offence. On cross- examination by defence counsel, the witness stated that her mother-in-law who happened to be the mother of Mst. Ruby had passed away few days before and she had visited Mst. Ruby who had not visited the house of witness for 3/4 days. Mst. Neena was also present in house of Mst. Ruby at that time. Accused had entered the house to call the deceased. Confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC the witness admitted that she had told the Police that the accused called the deceased from outside the house but it was so as all the inmates of house including the visitors were sitting in the courtyard of the house at that time and the accused had entered the courtyard. She admitted that the deceased had hired a room in the same area but he was mostly staying with his mother. She also admitted the fact that the deceased was living with accused 4/5 months prior to 16 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 the occurrence. She also admitted the suggestion that engagement of deceased had taken place a year before the occurrence and the ceremony had been organized in the house of accused as both were friends.
Pw-Daleep Singh: the then Patwari Halqa Khas Jammu proved the site plan of place of occurrence prepared on directions from Investigating Officer which has been marked as EXTP-7. No question was put in cross-examination. Pw- Mohinder Singh: posted as Constable at Police Station City Jammu deposed that on 07.11.2006 he accompanied SHO to search for the accused. They affected arrest of accused near Gujjar Nagar. The witness proved the Arrest Memo marked EXTP-8 and the Search Memo of accused marked EXTP-9 bearing his signatures. On 25.11.2006 Jagdish Raj Barber identified the scissors and stated that the same had been removed by accused from his shop. The witness further deposed that barber had been arrested in connection with the investigation and he was called to Police Station regularly.
Pw-Pyare Krishan: posted in Photo Section of Crime Branch Jammu in the year 2006 deposed that he had clicked seven photographs of body of deceased at the instance of Investigating Officer at Mortuary Room of GMC Hospital Jammu. Body of deceased was identified by Investigating Officer. Photographs were marked EXTP-20/1 to EXTP- 20/6.On cross examination the witness stated that the photographs were clicked on 05.11.2006 in the day before the body of deceased was subjected to autopsy. Negatives thereof had been preserved in the record.17 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012
Pw- Fareed Ali Qureshi: then posted as Head Constable at PHQ Jammu deposed that on 04.11.2006 at about 8 pm he was undergoing haircut at the Saloon located in Christian Mohalla. While barber was cutting his hair, a man came rushing and pounced upon the basket containing instruments. The witness claimed that he did not see which instrument was removed by the invader. He also denied that the invader was known to him. He also claimed not to have seen what transpired near chowk. He was called to Police Station where he made similar statement. The accused was not known to him. The witness was declared hostile to prosecution and on cross examination by Public Prosecutor he stated that when the invader removed an instrument, he did not react. The barber did not comment on the incident. He also did not enquire about the same from the barber. He did not hear any commotion in the area. He admitted that he was a literate Policeman having 22 years of service and familiar with the provisions of Police Act. He was never posted in Police Station. The deceased was not known to him. He denied having told Police that the accused had removed the scissors from the shop of Sanjeev Hajam and on noticing the same the deceased had run for life towards Prem Nagar. He denied that he was making a false statement to screen the offender. On cross examination the witness stated that when the unidentified person removed the scissors from the basket, the barber did not give him a chase.
Pw- Ragu Nath Singh: deposed that on 04.11.2006 he was posted as Munshi at Police Post Residency Road Jammu. Mst. Ruby filed written report at 10.30 pm. He recorded the 18 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 same under instructions from Sub-Inspector Rajesh Anand who was the Officer In-charge. He produced Roznamcha and identified report No.20 dated 04.11.2006 recorded in his handwriting and bearing his signatures. It was marked EXTP-19. He proved the copy there- of forming part of the Challan. It was marked -19/1.
Copy of the report was forwarded to Police Station City Jammu for registration of FIR. On cross examination by the defence counsel, the witness stated that the written report had been presented by Mst. Ruby before Officer In-charge who directed its recording in Roznamcha. The report presented by Mst. Ruby was not scribed in his presence.
Pw-Mool Raj: the then Assistant Scientific Officer FSL Jammu deposed that on 13.11.2006 he received two sealed packets from SDPO North relating to the instant case. The packets were delivered by SG-Abdul Hamid. Seals on the packets marked A and B were found in tact. Contents of these packets and also one packet forwarded by the Doctor were subjected to microscopial and serological examinations. Results thereof were recorded in report No.15/10 FSL dated 24.11.2006 forming pat of Court record. The witness proved the report bearing his seal and signatures. It was marked EXTM-R. On cross examination by defence counsel he stated that he had not noticed presence of hole in the shirt received in sealed packet.
8. Pw(s) Pushpa Devi, Rohit, Sikkim Mattoo and Mst. Sunita have been given up at the trial by prosecution on varied grounds including that some of these witnesses claimed to have no knowledge about the occurrence while others had been won 19 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 over by the accused. Despite invoking provisions under Section 540 of CrPC prosecution failed to produce Investigating Officer Kuljeet Singh at the trial. Consequently curtain was drawn on prosecution evidence.
9. Examined under Section 342 of CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence, the accused has emphatically denied the allegations emanating from prosecution witnesses. No specific plea has been adopted in defence.
10. Since the accused was not acquitted under Section 273 of CrPC, he was called to enter upon his defense. As stated elsewhere in this judgment, despite embarking upon the exercise of adducing defense evidence learned defense counsel later abandoned the exercise. Thus, no evidence, oral or documentary, was brought on record by the accused in his defense.
11. We have been taken through the record and elaborate arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the rival sides.
12. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that judgment of acquittal is based on findings which are perverse. It is submitted that in the face of eye-witness account of Mst. Ruby, duly corroborated by the medical evidence and oral account of other witnesses present in her house at the time of calling out of deceased by the accused and further corroboration coming from the testimony of Pw- Farid Ahmed Qureshi, there was no justification for trial court to discard such evidence and find the accused "not guilty". It is submitted that solitary eye- witness Mst. Ruby is the mother of deceased who ordinarily 20 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 cannot be expected to spare the actual perpetrator of crime of murder of her son and falsely rope in an innocent. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has overlooked the reliable evidence, discarded testimony of Mst. Ruby on flimsy grounds and recorded erroneous findings which cannot be supported.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for accused submitted that the deceased was a friend of accused living in his company for number of years and the accused bore no animosity against him. There was no motive for the crime. Evidence brought on record was not reliable and prosecution has failed to rebut the presumption of innocence of accused. It was further argued that the uncorroborated testimony of solitary witness Mst. Ruby was not creditworthy and the same could not be made the basis for recording conviction of accused.
14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar. Evidence Act does not prescribe any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact. The criminal jurisprudence of India does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither legislative requirement as embodied in Section 134 of the Evidence Act nor legal position settled by a catena of rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court mandate that any particular number of witnesses should be examined for recording conviction of an accused. India legal system lays emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence. No significance is attached to quantity, plurality or multiplicity of witnesses. Plurality of witnesses is not required to establish culpability of an accused. Proof of guilt rests upon the quality of evidence, appreciation 21 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 whereof is a delicate task undertaken by a trained judicial mind. The credibility of the witness depends upon various factors. Whether a witness is related or interested, partisan or independent, chance or natural depends upon distinct features of each case. What value should be attached to the testimony of a witness also depends upon a variety of factors including his power of observation, maturity, capacity to comprehend a situation, fairness , objective approach and finally his ability to recall and recollect the facts and reproduce the same according to sequence of events. There are many events which occur at public places. Many offences are committed in full public view while many criminal acts are executed under cover of darkness and secrecy. Some occurrences offer many people opportunity to view it while in regard to some occurrences people have seldom the opportunity to have direct knowledge of the same. Multiple eye-witnesses may render it easier to bring the culprit to book while cases lacking direct evidence and dependent upon proof of circumstances may witness the perpetrator of crime escaping the clutches of law. It is in the case of a solitary eye witness that the Courts apply Rule of caution in appreciating the testimony of such witness to ascertain whether the same is wholly reliable. The testimony of a solitary eye witness is required to be subjected to fine tooth combing. The principle of common law "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" not being applied in India, the Courts have the onerous responsibility of separating grain from the chaff and accept the testimony of a witness shown to be not truthful in part to the extent same is corroborated and 22 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 discard the rest. It is well settled that where the prosecution case rests on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, the same must be wholly reliable. This statement of law has been further elaborated in judgment reported in AIR 1991 SC 1735. It was laid down that where the prosecution rests on sole testimony of an eye witness, same should be wholly reliable. However, it does not mean that each and every type of infirmity or minor discrepancy would render the evidence of such witness unreliable.
15. The credibility of the witness should be tested with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be above board, unblemished and beyond suspicion. The testimony of solitary eye witness must impress the Court as being natural, fully truthful and convincing. Such testimony must inspire confidence of such a degree that the Court finds no hesitation in recording the conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. This exposition of law was made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Thimoepa Chandappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2006) 11 SCC 323.
In Ria Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 328 the Hon'ble Apex Court held:-
"Evidence of an eye witness who is a near relative of the victim should be closely scrutinized but no corroboration is necessary for acceptance of his evidence."
The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated this legal position in State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash reported in 2007 (12) SCC 381 as follows:-
23 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012"The deposition of a solitary witness who is also related to the deceased can be relied on without corroboration, if the evidence is cogent and not shaken by the defence and same can be the basis for conviction of the accused."
The Hon'ble Apex Court again reiterated the same legal position in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009(1) Supreme 224 as under:
"Conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a solitary witness provided his presence at the place of occurrence was natural and his testimony should be strong, reliable and free from any blemish."
The law evolved on the subject of evaluation of testimony of solitary eye witness can be traced to the basic authority and oftly quoted decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vandivalu Therous vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 Sc 614. It was laid down that:-
"Court can and may convict placing reliance on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable and that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness."
Same has been followed in Puran Yadav vs. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (8) Supreme 51.
It follows that a Court can totally rely upon a solitary witness to record conviction of an accused provided the witness is reliable. The sum and substance of the judicial precedents on 24 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 the subject is loud and clear. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a solitary eye witness but in order to be the basis of conviction, presence of such witness on the scene of offence must be natural and probable. Further testimony of such witness should be strong, reliable and free from any blemish.
16. In the backdrop of the legal position enumerated hereinabove we now proceed to evaluate the testimony of solitary eye witness -Mst Ruby for determining whether the version emanating from her mouth is credit-worthy and reliable.
17. The testimony of Mst. Ruby runs through the whole spectrum of events from inception to tail end. Her role is all pervading. She claims to have witnessed the occurrence including the events shortly before and immediately after it was enacted. It emerges from her account that while some visitors to her house had landed there in the evening of 04.11.2006 to condole the death of her mother at about 7.30 pm, the accused called out her son-Vishal Mattoo. Sensing some foul play, she tried to persuade Vishal not to go alongwith the accused as the relations between them were strained on account of money transaction: the accused owning some money to Vishal. However, accused reassured her holding out that Vishal would return soon. Vishal also comforted his mother. However, Vishal did not return for about 15 minutes and the witness became restless. She left her house, walked on Gujjar Nagar Cremation ground Road and upon noticing assemblage of people on other side of road; she crossed the road and found accused and Vishal grappling in front of the vegetable shop of Pawan. While fighting they reached near the Generator. Thereupon accused gave strikes with scissors in the chest of Vishal and escaped 25 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 towards graveyard. Vishal feel down. The witness picked up Vishal with the help of Bully and Arun and other persons on spot and carried him in an auto-rickshaw to hospital. She claimed that Vishal was speaking a little bit and he told her that accused had called him for settling the monetary dispute but stabbed him with scissors. It is in her account that the condition of Vishal deteriorated thereafter and when he was admitted in Emergency Ward of Hospital, he was declared "brought dead". She went to Police Post Residency Road directly from Hospital and lodged a written report recorded in her own handwriting in Hindi. The witness has testified to the contents of written report marked EXPW-R. Her testimony also reveals that accused, known as Kitty in his Mohalla was a desperate character but she did not pay heed to the advice of locals as the accused was a friend of Vishal. She called him a Jail Bird. The witness identified the Scissors bearing mark- R at the trial.
18. The testimony of Mst. Ruby, when subjected to close scrutiny reveals that her account is spread out on two chapters; the first chapter incorporates the happening in her house where in the fateful evening she had received visitors to condole the death of her mother. From her cross examination it comes to fore that 4/5 persons were present in her house which included her brother's spouse-Praveen and her husband's sister-Neena. Remaining visitors had come along Neena and they were not previously known to her. She maintained in her cross examination that she had left the house in search of Vishal without informing the visitors. Reasons for this kind of behaviour on her part are not far to seek. Since she was suspicious about the intentions of accused due to strained 26 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 relations between accused and deceased with reference to money which the accused owned to deceased, it was quite natural on her part to become panicky as the deceased did not return despite lapse of about 15 minutes. Thus, she stepped out of her house to enquire about the welfare of Vishal without letting the visitors know that she was disturbed for having allowed Vishal to go in the company of accused. Such conduct on the part of the witness is natural and probable. Same does not render her account untrustworthy.
19. Applying the rule of caution it would be appropriate to look for corroboration on this aspect of her testimony. Pw- Mst. Neena has deposed that in the fateful evening while she was sitting in the house of Mst. Rbuy along with Vishal and Mst. Pareen, accused arrived there and asked the deceased to join him just for two minutes. Pw- Neena has supported the version of Mst. Ruby by maintaining that Mst. Ruby had made a bid to prevent Vishal from going alongwith accused but the accused had told her that he would be shortly back. The deceased left in the company of accused and about 15 minutes later she learnt about the murder of deceased. It emerges from her cross examination that she had left the house of Mst. Ruby while Mst. Ruby and Mst. Praveen were still there. She heard about the murder of deceased 20 minutes later. However, she did not rush to house of deceased and instead left for Hospital. She did not support her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC to the effect that Mst. Ruby had left the house to search for Vishal and when the witness heard commotion outside, she went out and left for Hospital. Testimony of this witness goes unassailed insofar as her presence in the house of Mst. Ruby at the relevant 27 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 time is concerned. The witness who had visited house of Mst. Ruby saw and heard the accused calling the deceased to join him and it was in her presence that deceased left in the company of accused. Witness is not an eye witness of the occurrence insofar as murder of deceased is concerned. Her testimony, relating to events that occurred shortly before the murder of deceased, falls in the category of contemporaneous evidence and is admissible as res-gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
20. Testimony of Mst. Ruby is further corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of Pw- Praveen who happened to be her brother's wife. Her deposition brings it to fore that in the fateful evening she was sitting in the company of Mst. Ruby in latter's house when accused dropped in and called the deceased to accompany him. The witness claims to have sounded a warning to the deceased in going along the accused as in her opinion the accused did not have a good reputation. However, accused assured that he wanted the deceased to settle the accounts with him. This witness has, thus, spoken about the event immediately preceding the occurrence when the deceased was last seen going along the accused at the latter's instance. The witness has supported the version of Mst. Ruby when she claims that Mst. Ruby had left the house as the deceased did not return even after expiry of fifteen minutes. Meanwhile, the witness returned to her home. She claimed having learnt about the murder of deceased about 1 ½ hours later while she was in her home. Her cross examination reveals that she had gone to the house of Mst. Ruby who had not visited her house since last four days due to demise of her mother. She 28 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 also spoke of presence of Mst. Neena in house when deceased was taken along by the accused. According to her account accused had entered the house of Mst. Ruby. When confronted with her statement under Section 161 CrPC, the witness clarified that they were sitting on cots in the courtyard of the house when accused arrived there. She agreed with the suggestion that deceased had hired a room in the same area for residential purposes but insisted that he would often live with his mother. She also admitted that the deceased was living with accused 4/5 months before the accident. She admitted that the betrothal/engagement of deceased had been conducted in the house of accused as both were close friends. Mst. Ruby had not closed the door of her house when she left in search of deceased.
21. Testimony of Mst. Praveen has not been challenged seriously by imputing any motive for false implication to her. She is not shown to be inimical to the accused. She is not also shown interested in getting the accused punished. Nothing has been suggested to her to come to conclusion that she has been planted as a witness to falsely implicate the accused. Her version is consistent and credible. She had limited role and her testimony is limited to the period when deceased was in her home with his mother and accused took him along on the pretext of settling accounts. The witness had gone to the house of Mst. Ruby as mother of Mst. Ruby (Mother-in-law of the witness) had died few days before. Her presence in the house of Mst.Ruby is natural and her account of witnessing the pre- occurrence event immediately preceding the murder of deceased is probable.
29 Cr. Appeal No.67/201222. Testimonies of Mst. Neena and Mst. Praveen who withstood the test of cross examination and whose credit could not be impeached in the least are corroborative in character and the same cannot be discarded merely because these witnesses are closely related to Mst. Ruby. It is well settled that related is not equivalent to interested. It was held in Namdev vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 Sc (1):-
"The witness who is a relative of the deceased or victim of a crime cannot be characterized as "interested". The term "interested" postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect "interest" in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other/motive."
23. From cross examination of these two witnesses it is abundantly clear that neither any animus nor any oblique motive has been attributed to these witnesses whose presence on occasion was quite natural. Their version corroborates testimony of Mst. Ruby in regard to pre-occurrence circumstances in which deceased was taken away by the accused and inspires confidence in her testimony, such evidence being relevant and admissible as res gestae and conduct of accused.
24. Now coming to the portion of testimony of Mst. Ruby regarding the episode at the Gujjar Nagar cremation ground road where alleged occurrence took place, be it seen that Mst. Ruby has nominated two witnesses Bully and Arun who arrived there immediately after the deceased was assaulted by the accused with the scissors causing injuries in his chest.
30 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012According to Mst. Ruby the motorcycle borne witnesses Bully and Arun with the help of those present on spot, lifted the deceased and helped the witness carrying the injured in an auto rickshaw to Hospital. It is in her testimony that while Arun sat with her in Auto rickshaw holding the deceased, Bully rode his motor cycle. Pw- Arun has entered the witness box to depose about the incident. It is in his testimony that while he was riding his motor cycle and passing through Prem Nagar Christian Colony, he noticed an assemblage of people. He found Vishal Matto lying on the road near the Vegetable Shop. He and others lifted the injured and carried him to hospital. The witness has nominated Bully as one of the persons who assisted in removal of injured to hospital in an auto rickshaw. Testimony of this witness corroborates testimony of Pw- Mst. Ruby in all material particulars relating to removal of deceased to hospital while he was found lying at the scene of offence in an injured state. It appears that this witness has made departure from prosecution version only to the extent of presence of Mst. Ruby on spot. The witness has been declared hostile to prosecution to the extent of omission of name of Mst. Ruby as being present on spot. On cross examination by prosecution, the witness admitted having told the Police during investigation that he had seen the accused picking scissors from the shop of barber and assaulting the deceased with the scissors. However, he claimed that the police had threatened him to make such statement. He did not support the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC in this regard. He maintained that he had not seen Mst. Ruby on spot when he had lifted the deceased. On critical appreciation of testimony of this witness it is manifestly clear 31 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 that the witness corroborated the prosecution version on this aspect of the incident notwithstanding his omission of name of Mst. Ruby being present on spot at that time. Reasons for such omission can easily be attributed to his succumbing of influence as he admitted having made statement before Police in which Mst. Ruby was stated to be present on spot and at her instance the witness and Arun made arrangements for transportation of the injured to Hospital. Pw- Bully has not been examined at the trial. He is reported to have died during the course of trial. Testimony of Pw-Arun which has not been assailed in regard to his role in removing the deceased to Hospital while he was lying in injured condition at Prem Nagar Christian Colony corroborates testimony of Pw- Mst. Ruby and instills confidence in her version notwithstanding the fact that he has tried to play truant by trying to exclude presence of Mst. Ruby on spot in which he has failed miserably. Thus, testimony of Mst. Ruby is found reliable and credible.
Pw-Jagdish Raj is a barber who was running his salon at Prem Nagar Christian Colony at the relevant time. It is in his testimony that he was running his saloon in the shop belonging to one Sikkim Mattoo who happened to be the brother of accused. Pw- Sikkim Matto has been given up at the trial as according to prosecution he had been won over by the accused. Pw- Jagdish Raj claimed that he used to work in his saloon from 9 am to 8 pm. However on 04.11.2006 he was not present in his shop at 7.45 pm. He denied that Pw- Farid Ahmed Qureshi had hair-cut in his Salon on that day. Since he declined to support prosecution version, he was declared hostile to prosecution and cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor in which he denied 32 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 that deceased was known to him. He admitted having put his signatures on the statement recorded by Police but denied having made such statement. He also denied that seized scissors bearing Mark-R belonged to him. He admitted having put his thumb impression on the identification memo in respect of scissors but expressed his ignorance about its contents. In respect of his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC in which he implicated the accused as author of crime he offered explanation that he had made such statement under fear of Police. He admitted that he had been summoned by Police and detained for two days. He was being called for questioning daily. Testimony of this witness, in the context of admission of his statement made before Police during investigation, on the face of it appears to be bereft of truth. Prosecution version would collapse like pack of cards if this witness is believed to say that his shop was closed at the time of alleged occurrence. The prosecution version is that the accused while locked in a dual with the deceased, picked scissors from the shop of accused who was attending his customer undergoing hair-cut and assaulted deceased in his chest using scissors as weapon of offence. If the witness is believed to say that his shop was closed, prosecution version becomes improbable. From where did the scissors come would be a million dollar question to ponder about? This is not a case where an ordinary type of weapon has been used to commit murder. Use of scissors as an instrument of stabbing is rare and exceptional. Scissors is used as a conventional instrument for hair cutting by barbers and its use for stabbing a person to death is unusual and uncommon. Such instrument, when used for stabbing, is usually picked 33 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 when same is handy. Circumstances of the case would indicate that since the accused and deceased was grappling on the road at Prem Nagar and the occurrence took place in the vicinity of barber's shop of witness -Jagdish Raj, scissors being handy, accused laid his hands thereupon to eliminate the deceased. This conclusion would be reinforced by the testimony of Farid Ahmed Qureshi.
Pw- Farid Ahmed Qureshi posted as Head Constable at PHQ Jammu deposed that on 04.11.2006 at about 8 pm he was undergoing a hair-cut at the shop of barber situated in Christian Mohalla. Meanwhile, a person came hastily and lifted an instrument from the tool kit of barber and left the place. The man was not known to him. The witness claimed no knowledge about the incident that took place in the Chowk near the shop. He declined to identify the accused. He was declared hostile to prosecution and on cross examination he stated that he did not react as an unidentified person removed the instrument. The barber also did not comment on the episode. The witness admitted that he had 22 years service in Police Department and he was aware of the duties imposed on a Policeman. He claimed to be well versed with Police Act. The deceased was not known to him. He disowned his statement to the extent that he had seen the accused removing scissors from the shop of barber Sanjeev Hajjam and chasing Vishal Mattoo towards Prem Nagar. It appears from his cross examination that the barber did not run after the accused. He has assigned no reason for the same.
Testimony of Pw-Faried Ahmed Qureshi, when subjected to critical analysis in the context of deposition of the solitary eye witness and proof of seizure of the weapon of offence, leads 34 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 to conviction that he has succumbed to influences that are at work during the trial of a criminal case. That accounts for his half-hearted support to prosecution case. There is no doubt that he is lying to the extent of not watching the occurrence which happened at a small distance from the barber's shop. It is flabbergasting that the witness, with the background of Police service spanning more than two decades, would not have reacted upon noticing the accused snatching the tool kit of barber and decamping with an instrument followed by assault on the deceased in close vicinity of the barber shop. It is equally strange that the witness did not inquire from the barber about the happening and that he did not hear the commotion emanating out of what was being enacted close to the shop. His conduct, as depicted by his deposition, is unnatural and repugnant to ordinary human behaviour. It is well settled that the testimony of a hostile witness is not effaced from the record and it can be relied upon to the extent it is supported by other evidence on record. His testimony is accordingly discarded insofar as the same relates to his claim of not having witnessed the occurrence. However, his testimony is capable of being relied upon to the extent it corroborates prosecution version to the extent of his presence as a customer undergoing hair cut in the barber shop of Jagdish Raj at the time of alleged occurrence. The witness is partly truthful and his version regarding his presence in the barber shop goes unassailed.
Testimony of Pw- Farid Ahmed Qureshi, to the extent of acceptability as indicated hereinabove, knocks the bottom of the deposition of Pw- Jagdish Raj-the barber who resiled from his version disclosed during investigation and denied 35 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 that Pw -Farid Ahmed Qureshi had undergone hair-cut in his shop in the evening of 04.11.2006. Pw- Jagdish Raj has stated that his shop was not lying open on the relevant date and time and that he had not witnessed the occurrence. On critical appreciation of his testimony Pw- Jagdish Raj has been found lying on account of succumbing to influence emanating from his landlord Sikkim Mattoo who happened to be the brother of accused. Apart from inherent flaws in his testimony justifying labeling him as a 'brand liar', testimony of Pw- Farid Ahmed Qureshi clearly justifies the conclusion that Pw- Jagdish Raj has brazen facedly lied to extend protection to accused.
The conclusion deducible from the above discussion is that the testimony of Pw-Mst. Ruby, which being natural and probable and not emanating out of any motive for false implication and found capable of implicit faith being reposed therein, is sufficiently corroborated in material particulars by testimony of Pw-Farid Ahmed Qureshi and Pw- Arun. The medical evidence establishing the nature of injuries sustained by deceased and the cause of death goes along and is in conformity with the ocular account of the alleged occurrence.
Brief reference to other corroborative evidence reveals that the testimony of Samuel supports seizure of body of deceased, his blood stained clothes and delivery of body to him for last rites after conclusion of autopsy. He deposed about Disclosure Statement made by accused in regard to the scissors lying concealed under bushes at Christian Graveyard but did not support prosecution version to the extent of recovery of the scissors from the given spot at the instance of accused. Pw- Ajit 36 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 Pal Gill too is a witness of the aforesaid facts. Pw- Dalip Singh is the Patwari who proved the site plan at the instance of Investigating Officer. Pw-Mohinder Singh, posted as PSO with SHO P/s City, proved arrest of accused from Prem Nagar on 07.11.2006. It is in his testimony that Pw- Jagdish Raj-barber had identified the seized scissors at the Police Station as an instrument of hair cutting belonging to his shop. Pw- Pyare Krishan is the Photographer who proved seven photographs of deceased clicked at Mortuary of GMC Hospital, Jammu. Pw- Mool Raj is the Scientific Officer of FSL Jammu who conducted chemical, microscopical and serological examinations of the two sealed packets deposited with FSL in connection with the investigation of this case. He proved the report marked EXT-MR, according to which the stains on T- shirt and jacket of deceased and the blood sample obtained during autopsy from body of deceased were of human origin and belonged to B-Group whereas blood stains found on the seized scissors was of human origin but its Group could not be determined. This forensic and documentary evidence further corroborates the testimony of ocular witness.
On reappraisal of evidence we find that prosecution has been successful in discharging its burden of proof of guilt of accused as the author of crime of murder of deceased -Vishal Mattoo. Findings recorded by Trial Court to the contrary are perverse as the legally admissible, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence of the solitary eye witness duly corroborated by oral, documentary, forensic and Expert evidence has been improperly rejected. We have no hesitation in observing that Trial Court Judgment has resulted in grave miscarriage of 37 Cr. Appeal No.67/2012 justice. We, accordingly, reverse the judgment of acquittal and find the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 of RPC for having committed offence of murder of Vishal Mattoo.
Choice of sentence for offence of murder lies between capital punishment and life sentence. It is well settled that the sentence must be commensurate with and proportionate to the level of the guilt proved in a given case. The instant case does not fall within the province of 'rarest of rare cases'. Murder in the instant case is neither 'diabolical' nor 'depraved'. Thus, we propose life sentence as being appropriate in the facts and circumstance of the case. The convict is, accordingly, sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand). The amount of fine shall be realized from his estate.
The convict shall surrender to suffer sentence. Should he fail to surrender within one week, non-bailable warrants of arrest shall be levied to secure his presence and upon execution thereof he shall be committed to Central Jail Jammu for suffering sentence.
Copy of this judgment be provided to the convict free of cost.
(Bansi Lal Bhat) (Hasnain Massodi)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
Sunita.
27 .09.2013