State of Jammu & Kashmir vs Qasim Ali and Another

Y.P. Nargotra, J.—This is a criminal reference made by learned Sessions Judge, Kargil for setting aside the order dated 8.8.2000 passed

by Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the proceedings initiated against the respondents for commission of the offences u/s 309 and 506 R.P.C on

police report were dropped u/s 249 Cr. P.C.

Shorn of details, the necessary facts can be stated thus, that the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 who are presently living as husband

and wife, were in love with each other. As per prosecution story on the refusal of respondent No. 1 to marry with respondent No. 2, she

consumed some poisonous material in order to commit suicide and thereby made unsuccessful attempt to take her own life. Consequently, case for

commission of offence u/s 309 and 506 R.P.C. was registered and the accused on the Police report were put on trial. The sole eye witness did not

support the prosecution so the learned Trial Court truncated the proceedings and dropped the same mid way u/s 249 Cr. P.C.

State went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who by his reference has recommended for setting aside the order of the Trial

Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were

in love and are presently living with each other as husband and wife after conducting marriage. The sole eye witness has not supported the case of

the prosecution. Learned Trial Court has truncated the proceedings mid way being of the view that the view of the fact that sole eye witness had

not supported prosecution, therefore, there was no prospect of conviction. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that entire evidence should

have been recorded. However, I am of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, learned Trial Court was justified in dropping the

proceedings.

Where there is no prospect of case ending in conviction, a Criminal Court possesses jurisdiction to truncate the proceedings even at the

evidence stage. However, such jurisdiction should always be exercised with due care and circumspection and the conclusion that case can not end

in conviction must not be drawn by critical appreciation of the evidence which is yet to be tendered. The test would be that such evidence, if

accepted, at its face value together with the evidence tendered by the prosecution during the trial would not prove the charge against the accused.

The reference, as such, disallowed and the order of the Trial Court is upheld. Report of the courts below be returned. Connected CMPs shall

also stand disposed of accordingly.