The appellate court found sufficient evidence to convict respondent No.1 for grievous injury despite contradictions in witness testimony, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny in cases with prior enmity.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. The appellant/State has challenged judgment dated 07.01.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) whereby, in a case arising out of FIR No. 116/2000 for offences under Sections 307/324/326/336/337 RPC registered with Police Station, Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges.

2. The facts, leading to filing of this appeal, are that on 05.04.2000, PW Mohd Ashraf while undergoing treatment in Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu for the injury received by him, made a statement before the police that on the aforesaid date at about 10.30 am when he reached his in-laws‟ house at Raika, he saw a number of people having gathered over there. He further stated that his father-in-law Siraj Din and respondent No.1/accused were having a long standing land dispute going on between them. On account of this, the respondents/accused along with 8/10 more persons had come on spot. It was further stated that the respondent No.1/accused Showkat Ali with an intention to commit murder of PW Mohd Ashraf launched a murderous attack on him with a Pathi on left side of his head which resulted in grievous injury to him. It was also alleged that the other respondents/accused were carrying clubs and axes in their hands, but they did not launch any attack upon him. When some people came on spot, the respondents/accused fled away from the spot and PW Mohd Ashraf fell down unconscious.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of PW Mohd Ashraf (EXPW-MA), an FIR came to be registered and the investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C were recorded and other evidence including revenue record pertaining to the place of occurrence was collected. The weapon of offence was seized based on the disclosure made by respondent No.1/accused. The injured PWs Mohd Ashraf, Mst. Fimo Bibi, Showkat Ali and Sheeda Bano were subjected to medical examination and the reports in this regard were obtained. After investigation of the case, offences under Sections 307/326/324/336/337/447/448 RPC were found established against the respondents/accused and the charge-sheet was laid before the learned trial Court.

4. On 11.02.2003, the learned trial Court framed charges for offences under Sections 307/448/336/337/326/34 RPC against the respondents/accused and their pleas were recorded. The respondents/accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of its case. In order to prove the charges against the respondents/accused, the prosecution examined as many as (08) out of (12) witnesses, cited in the challan. After completion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances, appearing in the prosecution evidence, were put to the respondents/accused and their statements under Section 342 of J&K CrPC were recorded. The respondents/accused claimed that a false case has been lodged against them on account of previous enmity between them and the complainant party. The respondents/accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

5. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is unreliable being contradictory in nature. Accordingly, by virtue of the impugned judgment, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges.

6. The appellant/State has called in question the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, primarily, on the ground that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective. It has been contended that the trial Court has rejected the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy grounds and, even though there was sufficient evidence on record to convict the respondents, the trial Court