IMPORTANT POINT
Criminality under Section 295 RPC does not include insult of religion which is made unintentionally or carelessly or without malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.

JUDGMENT

The present appeal has been directed against judgment dated 29.08.2014, delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda (Special Judge),[the trial Court, for short] vide which respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 295/447/504/506 RPC.

2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall be apt to have an overview of the background facts.

3. On 18.11.2006, a complaint, EXPW-PS came to be lodged by one Phalail Singh, who claims to be ‘Mohatmin” of temple Shivaji Maharaj, Trown, Tehsil Doda. The complainant placed reliance upon Khasra Girdawari of Kharief 2006 to contend that land measuring 02 kanals, 11 marlas, comprising Khasra No. 53 min situate at village Trown belongs to Shivaji Maharaj Temple and he is looking after the Temple and its property. It was inter alia alleged by the complainant that in the afternoon of 16.11.2006, respondents trespassed into the aforesaid land, put some construction material, in furtherance of common criminal intention to damage the temple property and to defile the temple. It was alleged by the complainant, that he dissuaded the respondents/accused from doing so, but he was threatened to be liquidated by accused persons with the help of militants and they also threatened to set his house on fire. On the receipt of this complaint, FIR No. 177 of 2006 for offences under sections 295, 295A, 447, 427, 458, 504, 506 RPC came to be registered and investigation culminated into final report, in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C for offences under Sections 295, 447, 504, 506, 34 RPC. Offence under Section 295 RPC being exclusively triable by the Special Judge, the final report was laid in the trial court.

4. Respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences, by the trial Court whereby they pleaded innocence and claimed trial, which prompted the trial Court to ask for the prosecution evidence. The prosecution, in order to establish guilt of the respondents, examined as many as nine witnesses, out of which, three witnesses turned hostile. As a matter of fact, the entire prosecution case hinges on the testimonial potency of the complainant, PW-Phalail Singh only.

5. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, respondents denied the incriminating imputations arrogated to them by the prosecution witnesses in their respective statements, under Section 342 Cr.P.C and did not enter the defence.

6. Learned trial Court, on critical appreciation of the prosecution evidence, is of the view that prosecution failed to prove guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and therefore, vide impugned judgment both the respondents were acquitted of the charges.

7. Appellant has questioned the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in it s right perspective as the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in the ordinary course of nature is sufficient to sustain conviction of the respondents.

8. Heard arguments and perused the file.

9. Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, learned Government Advocate, for the appellant-state, has reiterated the grounds urged in the memo of appeal in his arguments. Learned G.A, taking an exception to the findings returned by learned trial court, has argued that learned trial court has fallen in grave error of law to focus on the title or possession of the complainant. According to learned GA, even if, prosecution has failed to prove title or possession of complainant over the subject land or Temple, learned trial court was obliged to record finding keeping in view the predominant allegations against the respondents that they acted in furtherance of common criminal intention to damage the temple property and defile the sanctity of temple, as defined under section 295 RPC.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Raina, learned defence counsel, has argued that most of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile during the trial and since testimon