HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CrlA (AS) No.46/2021 State of J&K …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA. q vs Deep Singh .…. Respondent(s) Through: None. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 07.08.2025 ORAL 01. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29.04.2019, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [“the trial Court”] in case titled “State V. Deep Singh”( file No.20/Session), vide which, respondent came to be acquitted of the charge for offences under Sections 457/395/201/411/414 RPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. 02. As factual narration would unfurl, on 26.12.1995, Police Station Dessa, Doda received a complaint of one Mohan Lal, by post stating inter alia that on 29.11.1995, at about 11.00 p.m, 20 to 25 masked men barged into his house, threatened him and his family members, demanded Rs.10,000/- and threatened to eliminate the family, if amount was not paid. The complainant gave Rs.2,000/- but could not identify masked men due to complete darkness. It was also alleged that said persons had confined family members of the complainant in one room, searched his house and stole away one rifle No. 9:56 DM local made, one Kartoosi, gold ornaments, weighing 650 tolas, one watch, a torch and 2 kgs desi ghee. It was further alleged in the complaint that on 30.11.1995, accused Deep Singh(the respondent) along with Mani Ram and Pyar Singh came to the house of the complainant and demanded a ransom of Rs.50,000/- saying that they were the 91 2 masked persons who had come to his house on 29.11.1995 and threatened to kill him, if amount was not paid. On receipt of this report, FIR No.8/95 for offences under Sections 457/395 RPC and 3/25 of Arms Act came to be registered and investigation came into vogue. 03. As per the investigating agency, accused Hoshiar Singh during investigation of another FIR No.20/1996 made a disclosure, consequent whereupon a Kartoosi rifle and some stolen property pertaining to the present case came to be recovered, whereas some stolen property was allegedly misappropriated by the accused persons. Accordingly, the investigation of the present case culminated in a charge sheet against accused, including the respondent. 04. On 27.09.2000, accused Ghulam Hassan, Deep Singh(respondent) and Mani Ram came to be charged for offences under Sections 457/395 and 201 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act, whereas accused Hoshiar Singh was charged for offences under Sections 457/395/201/411/414 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act. All of them pleaded innocence and claimed trial, prompting the prosecution to ask for the prosecution evidence. 05. It is pertinent to mention that during the currency of the prosecution evidence, the respondent absconded and was proceeded under Section 512 Cr.P.C. However, the prosecution continued against rest of the accused persons. 06. On culmination of trial, case of the prosecution came to be dismissed and accused Ghulam Hassan, Hoshiar Singh and Mani Ram came to be acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda. However, it was made clear that acquittal of co-accused shall have no bearing on the merits of the case so far it relates to the respondent. 3 07. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent later filed petitions in this Court for transfer of criminal cases, including the present case, pending in different Courts in District Doda to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu. The petitions were allowed and the present case, came to be transferred from the files of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda to learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu and subsequently it was transferred to the trial court on 30.01.2017. 08. After the respondent surrendered in the trial Court, prosecution was afforded an opportunity to produce evidence. However, prosecution failed to produce even a single witness against the respondent despite repeated opportunities. As a result, prosecution evidence came to be closed. 09. A perusal of the trial Court record reveals that statements of a couple of prosecution witnesses, including PW1- Tarlok Singh and PW2-Major Singh were already recorded in the presence of the respondent, before he absconded from the trial. 10. Pertinently, PW1-Tarlok Singh reflected his ignorance about the accused persons and in cross examination, he clearly stated that his statement was never recorded by the Police. 11. PW2-Major Singh deposed that on 03.11.1996, his house was burgled, he lodged the FIR and nominated respondent and Hoshiar Singh. He also stated that accused Hoshiar Singh disclosed during investigation of the said case that he had a 12 bore rifle and said rifle was recovered from near the house of accused Hoshiar Singh and no other article was recovered. Stolen property was also recovered. In cross examination, he, however, clarified that he had no knowledge about the present case, which took place in the house of complainant Mohan Lal, nor anything pertaining to the said case was recovered in his presence. 4 12. It is evident from the statements of both the prosecution witnesses PW1- Tarlok Singh and PW2-Major Singh that they have not connected the respondent anywhere with the commission of the occurrence. 13. In the circumstances, learned trial Court rightly resorted to Section 273 Cr.P.C. and acquitted the appellant for want of evidence. 14. A Criminal Court, in terms of Section 273 Cr.P.C. is vested with the jurisdiction to record an order of acquittal before calling the accused to enter upon his defence, if he finds that there is no legal evidence available on record to connect him with the charge. 15. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or improprietary in the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed and impugned judgment is upheld. 16. Disposed of. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge Jammu 07.08.2025 Eva Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No