Judgment

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.-This Revision petition has been filed by the complainant-Bindu Kumari against an order of acquittal recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raman (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”), whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted vide judgment dated 31.10.2018.

2. The respondent-accused were put to trial before the learned trial Court on the basis of a complaint of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 325/336/341/147/504/406 RPC. Initially, a charge-sheet was filed against them for offences punishable under Sections 307/341/147/336/504/506 RPC before the Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramban. The learned Sessions Judge, Ramban discharged the accused for offence punishable under Section 307 RPC, however, framed charges against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 325/336/341/147/504/506 RPC vide order dated 16.04.2015. The case was thereafter sent to the trial court for trial.

3. The trial court recorded the plea of the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial Court recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Bindu Devi-complainant, Madan Lal, Sher Singh, Mohd. Afzal, Dhrupti Devi, Krishan Lal, Zahoor Ahmed. After recording statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against them beyond doubt. The trial Court, while acquitting the accused vide judgment impugned, has made following observations.

“9. In a criminal trial, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused facing the trial, and the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt, by bringing convincing, reliable and cogent evidence on record. In the case in hand, there are of-course many material contradictions and dis-connectivity in the chain of evidence, casting she serious doubt on the prosecution case. Injured Krishan Lal has stated that he was attacked at the distance of 200 feet away from his house and he has narrated the occurrence to his wife Bindu Devi, and to witness Madan Lal and Sher Singh. The investigation of the case has shown the Bindu Devi, Madan Lal, Sher Singh and Dhrupti Devi to be the eye witnesses who have witnessed the occurrence. But, Bindu Devi, who happens to be the wife of the injured, in her cross-examination, has stated that she had not herself witnessed the occurrence, as when she reached on the spot, the accused persons had already fled away. PW Madann Lal and Dhrupti Devi have stated that no occurrence has taken place in their presence. There is serious lacuna and doubt in the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence i.e. Lathi and stones. PW Bindu Devi has stated that it was handed over to the Police by her son who has just kept the Lathi and the stones inside the house. Her husband Krishan Lal has stated it was Bindu Devi and Sher Singh who handed over the Lathi and the stones to the police. The police case is that this Lathi and the stones were recovered on the disclosure of the accused, to which surprisingly the injured Krishan Lal has also shown to be the witness. Injured Krishan Lal in one breath states that he was in hospital for twenty days, and in another breath he states that he had signed the seizure memo with regard to the recovery of weapon of offence. So there version of one witness is not corroborating the another witness with regard to the recovery of weapon of offence, making the recovery itself doubt. The doctor was an important witness to certify about the injuries the injured has received but the prosecution has failed to produce him before this Court. It has come in evidence that the accused persons have also filed a case against the accused reflecting that the parties are inimical to each other. Neither the I.I. of the case is examined, nor is the person from FSL to whom the blood stained Jacket e