STATE OF J AND K Vs. SOHAN LAL KOUL
LAWS(J&K)-2006-6-4
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on June 02,2006

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Appellant
VERSUS
SOHAN LAL KOUL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the Judgment/order dated 9th May, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in a conviction appeal titled as Sohan Lal Koul v. State, whereby and whereunder the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Judge), Jammu was set aside and accused came to be acquitted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279, RPC, FIR No. 129/2001, Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu, which shall be hereinafter referered to as "impugned 8 judgment".
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant half heartedly argued that impugned order/Judgment is illegal, erroneous and perverse. The order passed by the trial Court was legally sound and accused-respondent was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. But the appellate Court has fallen in error while accepting the appeal of respondent-accused.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondent argued that the impugned order and judgment it; legally sound and needs no interference. While developing his arguments he stressly argued that FIR. came to be lodged in Police Station Bakshi Nagar for the commission of offences punishable under Section 304-A and 279, IPC and accordingly, Challan came to be presented against the accused. Prosecution has cited 23 witnesses in the witness calendar and only 4 have been shown as eye-witnesses. Out of 23 witnesses only 9 witnesses came to be examined. Some of the eye-witnesses and other important witnesses including Investigating Officer, Doctor, and Harbhajan Singh have not been examined. Thus, adverse inference was to be drawn against the prosecution and the accused was to be acquitted. Out of 9 witnesses examined, only one witness, namely, Parma Nand has stated some thing adverse against the accused. Other witnesses have not deposed any incriminating circumstance against the accused. Thus, conviction could not have been passed on the basis of statement of Parma Nand.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.