DB upholds trial court judgment, dismisses State Appeal

19/07/2025

JAMMU, Jul 18: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh, at Jammu - Division Bench comprising of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem have dismissed a criminal acquittal appeal filed Union Territory/ State of J&K.
The Bench held "It is settled proposition of law that if the view taken by the trial court is also possible view, the appellate court cannot interfere with the Judgment of the acquittal, even it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court on its consideration of evidence is erroneous, unless view taken by the trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view."
The High Court further held "In the case on hand, all the material witnesses, who were to prove the disclosure statements alleged to have been made by the accused, which lead to the recovery of prohibited arms and ammunition, lacks credibility, probity, so much so, the witnesses did not support the prosecution case insofar as the alleged disclosure of the accused is concerned. Hence the very foundation on which edifice of the prosecution story rests, insofar as, the alleged recovery of arms is concerned, is badly shaken and renders the same unworthy of reliance."
"In view of the discussion held, we do not find the impugned judgment, whereby A-1 and A-2 are acquitted, suffers from any perversity or impossibility, calling for interference or warranting any contrary view than the one taken by the trial court. Therefore, the judgment dated 02.01.2014 passed by the trial court is upheld and resultantly the Appeal No. CRAA No. 139/2014 is dismissed." the DB held.
This judgment was passed in a case filed by State of Jammu and Kashmir through, SHO Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu through:- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG V/s Tajinder Singh S/O Gurcharan Singh R/O Chatha Farm Jammu and Ravinder Singh S/O Hazara Singh R/O Chatha Farm Jammu through Mr. Prince Khanna, Advocate Vide this criminal acquittal appeal challenge was thrown to the judgment dated 02.01.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge) Jammu (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby and whereunder the trial court has acquitted the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as A-1 Tajinder Singh and A-2 Ravinder Singh) of the charges under Sections, 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, 7/25 Arms Act & 120-B RPC, respectively.
The accusations germane lead to the trial of A-1 Tajinder Singh and A-2 Ravinder Singh are that on 24.08.2005, a source information was received by PW-6 Diwakar Singh (SHO Police Station, Gandhi Nagar) that A-1 and A-2 who bore allegiance to militant organization, operating under the name and style of; K.Z.F., which is controlled by Ranjeet Singh @ Nita group and are operating under the diktat of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (I.S.I.) with the design and purpose to disturb the peace, tranquility, integrity and sovereignty of the country, and are seducing the youth of Satwari; Gadigarh and Gandhi Nagar, in Jammu to join the K.Z.F., a terrorist organization. The information also said to have been reached that the accused have concealed at some unknown place prohibited arms and ammunition, so as to commit heinous offence(s).
On receipt of this information, a case being FIR No. 195/2005 under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 120-B RPC came to be registered and investigation entrusted to PW-8 Vikas Gorkha (Sub-Inspector). During investigation, the police party of Police Station, Gandhi Nagar in collaboration with police party of Police Station, Satwari arrested the accused during naka laid at Satwari Chowk. During interrogation, A-1 and A-2 said to have made disclosure statements that they have concealed at Sajadpur, prohibited arms and ammunition, namely, AK 56 Rifle, two magazines, containing 99 live cartridges and 30 rolls of explosive substance, namely, RDX near Nikki Tawi in the bushes beneath the earth in a plastic bag.
The DB held that the testimonies of material witnesses, who are none other than the police personnel and were part of the police naka party, is full of contradiction, on the point that at the time of arrest, whether accused were walking on the road or they were travelling in the matador, therefore, the initial arrest of the accused itself becomes doubtful. It is noteworthy that PW-1 Kulvinder Singh and PW-5 Daljeet Singh were declared hostile.
The Court further held" All the witnesses deposed that when recovery was made it was dark, therefore, how the place was identified is a question which remained shrouded in the mystery. However, assuming if in the dark, police party arranged the light, then question arises what was the source of that light, but same is not coming forth nor any seizure of such object is made, therefore, it appears that the investigation was done in a slipshod manner, overlooking the very vital aspects of the piece of material evidence."
"It goes without saying that the prosecution also miserably failed to prove the safe custody of the alleged recovered arms and ammunition, as the Magistrate who stated to have done the sealing and resealing, even not cited as witness, therefore, at every stage it appears that sanctity and legality of the investigation has been badly compromised, leaving enough space for acquittal of the accused.Apart from the discussion made on the point of contradictions and discrepancies on the point of arrest, disclosure, recovery etc. there is another vital aspect of the matter that almost all the prosecution witnesses have deposed that right from the arrest of the accused, and thereafter, civilians were available, but none were associated with the alleged arrest, disclosure and recovery of the arms and ammunition. This aspect assumes importance in view of the contradictions we have pointed out in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, once it has come in the testimonies of the witnesses that civilians were very much available, but they were not associated, same vitiates the prosecution case and renders the same unworthy of reliance." the Court held.
"In view of the discussion held, we do not find the impugned judgment, whereby A-1 and A-2 are acquitted, suffers from any perversity or impossibility, calling for interference or warranting any contrary view than the one taken by the trial court. Therefore, the judgment dated 02.01.2014 passed by the trial court is upheld and resultantly the Appeal No. CRAA No. 139/2014 is dismissed.”

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty