State Of J&K vs Jagdev Singh And Another

Instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.01.2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, in File No.63/CH, titled „State vs Jagdev Singh and Another', whereby the learned trial Court, while dismissing the case of prosecution, has acquitted the accused in case FIR No.121/2001, registered with Police Station, Satwari for the offences punishable under Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act

The facts as have been noticed in the impugned judgment in nutshell are that on 17.09.1998 both the accused (respondents) were arrested by Police Station, Ramgarh and during the course of interrogation, on their disclosure statements given to the police, the concerned police recovered 20 packets of RDX which were hidden by the accused-respondents near the bank of Canal at Jewan Nagar, Jammu. Subsequently, on the directions of Director Inspector General of Police, FIR No. 61/1998 registered with Police Station, Ramgarh was cancelled in view of the fact that the recovery of the explosive material was effected from Jewan Nagar, Jammu which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Satwari, and as such FIR No.121/2001 was registered with Police Station, Satwari. The challan was produced by the concerned police before the competent Court and both the accused-respondents were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, however, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On considering and appreciating the evidence available on record so produced by the prosecution, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, found flaws in it and acquitted both the accused of the charges leveled against them.

I have heard Mr. F.A Natnoo, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Mr. Jasbir Singh Jasrotia, learned counsel for the accused-respondents and considered their submissions as well as trial Court record.

A bare perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the prosecution in support of its case has examined 15 witnesses who are police personnel and it also transpires that not even a single independent witness was associated by the concerned police during the course of investigation.

It has been observed by learned trial Judge that as the testimonies of prosecution witnesses namely, Bhopinder Singh and Tilak Raj (PW-4 &11 respectively) were not recorded completely, so the same cannot be relied upon. The learned trial Judge has also observed that the contradiction with regard to recovery site is a major flaw in the prosecution evidence as according to the prosecution the explosive materials were recovered from Jewan Nagar, Jammu at the instance of accused-respondents, however, Vijay Kumar PW-3 in his statement has deposed that the articles were allegedly recovered from Ajit Nagar and Rissal Singh PW-8 deposed that same were recovered from Preet Nagar, whereas Sat Pal, PW-9 contended that the articles in question have been recovered from Jewan Nagar. The judgment impugned further reveals that no details of material so recovered has been shown in the seizure memo prepared by the police concerned which lead to the major omission and this omission has important bearing in weakening the prosecution‟s case. There is further contradiction in the statements made by Parshotam Kumar, PW-10 and Rashpal Singh, PW-5. Learned trial Judge has accepted the plea of counsel for the accused-respondents that no independent witness has been associated with the recovery procedure which resultantly casted doubts on the genuineness of the prosecution‟s case.

It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the trial court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse.

For facility of reference, it would be advantageous to reproduce hereunder the relevant portion of judgment delivered by the Apex Court in 'Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs State of Bihar', (2002) 6 SCC 650:-

".......... In absence of any  manifest  illegality, perversity and miscarriage of justice, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the concurrent finding of acquittal of the accused merely because on re-appreciation of evidence it found the testimony of the PWs to be reliable whereas the trial court had taken an opposite view."

In the present case, the trial Court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has acquitted the accused- respondents of the alleged charges levelled against them; therefore, the same do not call for any interference. The major discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution were noticed by the learned trial Judge during the course of trial in the case, which could not lead to conviction of the accused-respondents, therefore, the Court below has not committed any illegality in recording acquittal of the accused-respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has referred no material or evidence which has either been misread or has not been considered by the Court below.

For the reasons stated hereinabove and the settled position of law, coupled with the reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court, I do not find any solid and weighty reason to take a view other than the one taken by the learned trial Judge; rather the trial Court in these circumstances had no option but to acquit the accused for want of adequacy of evidence. Resultantly, this Criminal Acquittal Appeal fails and the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2016 recording acquittal of respondents is upheld.

Send down the record of trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.