news details |
|
|
| DB Overturns Life Term in 2010 Majalta Murder Case; Grants Benefit of Doubt | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 28: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside the conviction and life sentence awarded to Shonku Ram of Majalta, Udhampur in a 2010 murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar allowed Crl A(D) No. 20/2020 (along with Conf. No. 11/2015) and quashed the judgment dated 14.11.2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur, by which the appellant had been convicted under Section 302 RPC in FIR No. 76/2010, Police Station Majalta, and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine.
As per the prosecution version, information was received at Police Station Majalta on 22.11.2010 at about 6.45 AM alleging that the accused, due to prior enmity over landed property, had inflicted grievous injury upon Jalla Ram with a drat; initially an FIR under Section 307 RPC was registered, which was later converted to Section 302 RPC after the victim died the next day. The prosecution further claimed a disclosure and recovery of the weapon from beneath the accused's cart at his house.
While the Bench noted that medical evidence established the death as homicidal and caused by a sharp-edged weapon, it reiterated that medical evidence alone does not fix the identity of the assailant, which must be proved through cogent and reliable evidence.
On appreciation of the witness statements, the Court found that key prosecution witnesses who were projected as eye-witnesses did not actually witness the assault and had reached the spot after the incident. It also observed that these witnesses had materially deviated from their earlier versions during trial, yet were not declared hostile, and their earlier police statements under Section 161 CrPC could not be treated as substantive evidence.
The Division Bench further expressed reservations over reliance on the testimony of a solitary witness (PW-12), noting that his presence at the crime scene was not described by other witnesses and that his version lacked independent corroboration, particularly in the backdrop of admitted relationship.
The Bench also highlighted a major contradiction regarding timing, as the FIR recorded information at 6.45 AM, whereas witnesses consistently stated the occurrence took place between 8.00 and 8.30 AM, an inconsistency which remained unexplained and affected the credibility of the prosecution case.
Regarding the alleged recovery of weapon, the Court held that it did not materially advance the prosecution case in the absence of unimpeachable evidence linking it to the fatal injuries beyond doubt, especially when witnesses admitted that the weapon shown during trial did not bear dried blood stains as claimed.
Concluding that suspicion cannot take the place of proof, the High Court held that the chain of evidence was not complete, and accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence, declined the confirmation reference, and ordered that the appellant shall be released forthwith, if in custody, and not required in any other case.
The appellant was represented by Mr. A. K. Shan, Advocate, while the State was represented by Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG (Sr. Advocate) assisted by Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate.
(JNF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
