IMPORTANT POINTS
Not disclosing entire sequence of events in his information cannot discredit the FIR.
When direct oral evidence available on record coupled with medical evidence, points at the guilt of the accused; not proving the motive will not be significant.
Evidence of interested witness cannot always be brushed aside.
Minor contradictions should be ignored.
Power of appellate court in hearing appeal against acquittal is the same as in appeal against conviction.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. Ramana, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th March, 2015 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2012. By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah against the appellant, and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302/341 of the Ranbir Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘RPC’) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302, RPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341, RPC, with the direction to realize the fine amount from his estate.

2. The brief facts, as culled out from the prosecution case are that on 18th May, 2006 a shop keeper of hardware material, namely, Arshad Sajad accompanied by his father Sajad Ahmed Bhat (PW9) were going to their home after closure of shop in the evening at about 5.30 p.m., while they were on their way, near Masjid, the appellant herein intercepted them from the opposite direction and started hurling abuses against them. When they ignored his abuses and moved forward, the appellant attacked Arshad Sajad on his head from behind with an iron rod. The injured Arshad Sajad and his father then went to the clinic of one Ali Mohd. (PW3) and on his advise they went to the Bhaderwah police station and informed the police about the incident. Accordingly, FIR No. 53 of 2006 was registered against the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323, RPC. Police then sent the injured to Sub District Hospital, Bhaderwah for treatment. As his condition was deteriorating, for better treatment, he was being shifted to Government Medical College, Jammu, but on the way, he succumbed to the injuries.

3. Nisar Ahmed, S.H.O. of police station Bhaderwah-PW 14 took up the investigation, sent the body of the deceased for postmortem, seized his clothes, inspected the spot, collected samples of bloodstained earth as well as normal earth and prepared site map (Ext. PW N.A.) and seizure memos. The accused-appellant was arrested on 20th May, 2006 and one iron rod being the weapon of assault has been recovered at his instance and sent it for chemical examination. Having recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. the I.O. carried on the investigation in which it was revealed that the motive behind the accused assaulting the deceased was actually related to a prior tussle between them during the daytime at the shop of the deceased over a financial transaction. Allegedly, basing on the guarantee and undertaking given by the accused-appellant, the deceased supplied some G.I. sheets to one Gias-ud-Din. When the appellant came to the shop of the deceased, he insisted the appellant to make payment. Over that issue, there occurred a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased. The passersby including Farid Iqbal (PW1), Sajad Ahmed-father of the deceased (PW9), Abid Hussain (PW10) and Amjad Hanif (PW12) got them separated. While leaving the shop, the appellant declared that he will see the deceased anytime, and in the evening when the deceased and his father (PW9) were going to their home, the accused met them on the way and assaulted the deceased on his head.

4. As the head injury resulted in the death of Arshad Sajad, charge against the accused was altered for the offence under Section 302/341, RPC and accordingly charge sheet was laid. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. At the trial, in its endeavour to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution had examined as many as 14 witnesses, whereas the accused in his defence has examined one witness. The trial Court after a full fledged trial, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove motive and the statement of sole eyewitness (father of the deceased) stood uncorroborated with the other witnesses, as the prosecution has failed to es