HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRAA No.210/2013 State of J&K th. P/S Nagrota ….Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG V/s Kulbushan Singh ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. R. K. Kotwal, Advocate Mr. Faheem Ahmad Mir, Adv. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 24.07.2025 (Oral) 1. This Appeal has been directed against judgment, dated 16.07.2013, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [“the trial Court”, for short], in case File No.55/Sessions, titled „State of J&K v. Kulbushan Singh‟, vide which, respondent came to be acquitted of the charge for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 307/341 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 ('RPC' for short) in case FIR No. 118/2005 of Police Station, Nagrota. 2. As factual narration of the case would unfurl, on 02.09.2005, ASI-Surjeet Singh of Police Station, Nagrota, recorded the statement of injured, PW-Sanjay Kumar at Government Medical College and Hospital (GMC&H), Jammu, on the basis of which, the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged. On the disclosure statement of the respondent, the weapon of offence, Tokka also came to be recovered and Sr. No. 19 2 CRAA No.210/2013 seized at his instance. During investigation, offence under Section 323 RPC was added. Injured, PW-Sanjay Kumar had alleged in his statement in the Hospital that on the night of 01.09.2005, while he was going home after closing his shop on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. JK02W-2702, he was intercepted by the respondent at Village Khelti and he made a murderous assault upon him with the Tokka, as a result whereof, he sustained grievous injuries on his head and ear. 3. The investigation culminated in the presentation of final report against the respondent in the trial Court for offences under Sections 341/323/307 RPC. 4. Respondent came to be charged by the trial Court for offences under Sections 307/341 RPC read with Sections 4/25 of Arms Act. However, respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, which prompted the trial court to ask for the prosecution evidence and prosecution has examined eight witnesses to bring home the guilt. Accused, in his statement, under Section 342 Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating evidence attributed to him by the prosecution witnesses and did not choose to lead evidence in defence. 5. Learned trial Court having critically analyzed the prosecution evidence has concluded that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and accordingly, he was acquitted of the charge. 6. The appellant-State is aggrieved of the impugned judgment, primarily on the ground that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate prosecution evidence in the right perspective. 7. Heard arguments and perused the file. 3 CRAA No.210/2013 8. Mr. P. D. Singh, learned Dy. AG appearing for the appellant-State has vehemently argued that learned trial court has fallen in grave error of law to acquit the respondent of the charge, despite the availability of cogent and reliable prosecution evidence on record as injured has testified in favour of the prosecution and it is trite that sole testimony of the injured is sufficient to sustain conviction. 9. Per contra, Mr. R. K. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has defended the impugned judgment, primarily on the ground that testimony of the injured has not been corroborated by any other prosecution witness and prosecution also failed to produce the medical officer, stated to have examined the injured, which proves fatal. 10. The allegation against the respondent is that on 01.09.2005, while the complainant/injured was proceeding to his house, on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. JK02W- 2702, he intercepted him on the way at Village Khelti and made a murderous assault upon him with a tokka, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries on his head and ear. 11. It is evident from the statement of the injured, which was recorded in the Hospital by Police, on the basis of which, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the respondent that he was all alone, at the time, he was allegedly attacked by the respondent with a tokka. The injured, however, in his testimony in the trial Court, has stated that he was accompanied by one Sunil Kumar, which is contrary to his statement, EXTP-1/1 recorded in the hospital, on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered. The injured also testified that he was evacuated to the hospital by said Sunil Kumar which again is in contradiction to the prosecution case as also his statement, EXTP-1/1 made by 4 CRAA No.210/2013 him in the Hospital. Therefore, it is evident that injured has not only exaggerated but his deposition is found discrepant on material aspects of the prosecution case. 12. Both the independent witnesses PWs Vijay Kumar and Manoj Singh, cited as eye witnesses by the prosecution, have turned hostile, which means that testimony of the injured, PW-Sanjay Kumar has not been corroborated by any independent witness. 13. Another aspect of the case, which needs attention, is that prosecution has failed to examine the Medical Officer, who is stated to have examined the injured. Therefore, statement of the complainant also remains uncorroborated by the medical evidence that he received injuries on his head and ear. 14. In so far as disclosure statement and recovery of the weapon of offence is concerned, PWs Sanjay Kumar and Vijay Kumar have been cited as witnesses to the disclosure and recovery. PW-Sanjay Kumar has admitted the disclosure statement, EXTP-1/2. He also stated that disclosure was signed by his brother PW-Vijay Kumar. However, PW-Vijay Kumar has denied that respondent made any disclosure in his presence. PW-Sanjay Kumar, in his cross examination, also admitted that he had not gone to the place of recovery, therefore, it is sufficient to indicate that weapon of offence has not been recovered in the presence of these witnesses, PWs-Sanjay Kumar and Vijay Kumar, who have been cited as witnesses to the disclosure, recovery and seizure. 15. Be it noted that PW-Vijay Kumar has also denied the contents of the recovery memo. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal witnesses to the recovery, seizure or Superdnama of the vehicle or the investigating officers. 5 CRAA No.210/2013 16. For the foregoing reasons, I concur with the observation of learned trial court that prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt as statement of the injured has not been corroborated by any other witness and the alleged disclosure and consequent recovery and seizure of the weapon of offence is shrouded in doubt. The impugned judgment has been passed by learned trial court after appreciating and analyzing the prosecution evidence in the right perspective. The judgment is well reasoned and I have not been persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by the trial court. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment is upheld. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge JAMMU 24.07.2025 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No