The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and trustworthy evidence in criminal cases, and the impact of material contradictions on the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.06.2011 handed down by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri [“trial Court”] in file No.50-A/Sessions titled ‘State of J&K v. Narinder Pal Singh @ Vicky & Ors.’, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/325/34 RPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 325 RPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment of similar nature for a further period of six moths and for offence under Section 323 RPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of similar nature for a period of one month. The sentences of imprisonment imposed were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

2. With a view to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this appeal, it would be necessary to first briefly notice the case of prosecution, as was put up before the trial Court.

3. On 23rd October, 2002, PW-Sham Lal lodged a report with the Police of Police Station Nowshera, alleging therein that the appellants trespassed into his land and on his objection, appellants became inimical to him and started threatening and abusing him. On 23.10.2002 at about 11 a.m. when PW-Sham Lal was picking roungi bean cobs from his fields, appellant Gursharan Singh, Narinder Pal Singh and Devinder Pal Singh launched a murderous assault on him and beat him with hockey sticks, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his head, other parts of the body including both legs. On complainant’s raising alarm, few persons came on spot and on seeing them, appellants fled away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No.107/2002 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/34 RPC came to be registered at Police Station, Nowshera and the investigation started.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, offences punishable under Sections 307/325/323/447/34 RPC were found established by the Investigating Officer and, accordingly, Final Report was laid. Vide order dated 03.04.2004, the charges were framed against the appellants for commission of offences punishable under Sections 447/307/325/34 RPC. The charges were read over to the appellants, who pleading innocence, denied the charge and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case to bring home the charges against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 16 prosecution witnesses. Incriminating circumstances that emerged from the prosecution evidence were put to the appellants for their explanation who were examined in terms of Section 342 CrPC. The appellants disputed the correctness of statements made by the prosecution witnesses. However, the appellants chose not to lead any evidence in their defence.

6. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the sides and having gone through the entire material on record, including the evidence brought on record during trial, accepted the prosecution case and vide judgment of conviction impugned in this appeal concluded that participation of the appellants in the occurrence is established and, thus, charge for offences under Sections 323/325/34 RPC are proved against the appellants. As a result, appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment.

7. The judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court is assailed by the appellants on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record, in its right perspective and passed the impugned judgment by total mis-appreciation of evidence; brushed aside the important aspects of the matter; none of the prosecution witnesses have connected the appellants with the commission of crime; seizure of