Per Bansi Lal Bbat, J.;— Condi. 65/2012 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 104 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Condonation application is, accordingly, disposed of. Main Appeal is taken on board. Cr. Acq. Appeal. 73/2012 This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31.03.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua in case File No. 54/Sessions titled State of J&K vs. Susheela in terms whereof accused-respondent herein has been acquitted of Charge under Section 302 RPC. The impugned Judgment has been assailed on the ground that learned Trial Court has foiled to appreciate the circumstantial evidence and other evidence available on record and the conclusions drawn are against the weight of evidence though the evidence brought on record was sufficient to warrant conviction of respondent. Heard and perused the impugned Judgment. According to prosecution version the patrolling party of Police Station Bani found an unknown person lying on the road near a Wine Sho in Bani town in an injured condition. Blood was oozing out of his head, nose and ears. It happened on 11.11.2007 at 12.15 am. ASI Mohd. Tufail heading the patrolling party shifted the injured to SDH Bani where the name of injured was revealed as Ramesh Kumar alias Pappu S/o Mulk Raj R/o Bani. He could not record the statement of injured. The information regarding the incident was accordingly lodged and First Information Report (FIR) No. 44/2007 was recorded alleging commission of Offences under Section 307/323 RPC. Police embarked upon the investigation which culminated in filing of Charge Sheet against the respondent before the competent Judicial Forum for Offence under Section 302 RPC as the injured succumbed to injuries. The case was initially handled by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua who committed the case to the learned Trial Court. Respondent pleaded not guilty to Charges of murder at the trial. Prosecution appears to have examined eleven(11) witnesses at the trial. Respondent did not opt for adducing evidence in defence. On consideration of evidence produced on record by prosecution learned Trial Court found that the evidence adduced by prosecution was fragile and flimsy and the prosecution had failed to prove Charges by cogent and credible evidence. Prosecution appears to have examined eleven(11) witnesses at the trial. Respondent did not opt for adducing evidence in defence. On consideration of evidence produced on record by prosecution learned Trial Court found that the evidence adduced by prosecution was fragile and flimsy and the prosecution had failed to prove Charges by cogent and credible evidence. With the able assistance of learned counsel for appellant we have scanned through the evidence adduced at Trial. Two modes of proof were adopted by the prosecution to establish complicity of respondent as the author of alleged murder of deceased. The first mode was the direct evidence. PW-Bishan Singh-SPO is the lone eye witness who deposed that on 10.11.2002 at 12 o'clock when he was returning to his home after performing his duty, he saw the respondent armed with a rod. Since the witness had heard the noise, he pelted a stone in the direction of accused who left the rod there and escaped. According to the witness he went to Police Station and thereafter Police Personnel came on spot. He claimed to have witnessed the respondent hitting the deceased with rod from a distance of 10 Ft. He also claimed to have taken the deceased to Hospital. PW-Mohd. Saif who too was from the same Police Station contradicted Bishan Singh's version by testifying that the deceased was found lying in unconscious state in front of Wine Sho with injuries on his person when the witness along with AST Mohd. Tufail and PWs Desh Bandu and Bishan Singh SPO were on patrolling duty. According to his version they shifted the deceased to Hospital. This witness has" stated categorically that the Members of patrolling party had not witnessed the occurrence. It is queer that the FIR does not speak about the occurrence having been witnessed by the patrolling party of Police or any Member thereof including Bishan Singh SPO. FIR has not been proved at the trial but the same can be looked into for the limited purpose of ascertaining the names of eye witnesses. It is equally flabbergasting that PW-- Bishan Singh made no effort to catch hold of assailant and instead pelted a stone on her so that she makes her escape good from the spot. This aspect assumes more significance as the respondent in the instant case is a lady who was not expected to outwit the said witness who was a Policeman. This aspect assumes more significance as the respondent in the instant case is a lady who was not expected to outwit the said witness who was a Policeman. Thus, the conduct of PW-Bishan Singh cannot be termed natural. Further assertion of the said witness that he was the informant is not supported by circumstances of the case. There is yet another aspect which arrests attention. PW- Bishan Singh deposed that he had informed the wife of deceased that someone had injured the deceased, and then he along with family members of deceased shifted him in injured condition to Hospital. If he knew the assailant or had recognized her/him, there was no reason to withhold the identity of the assailant. Contrarily PWs Raj Kumar and Neelani Kumari son and wife of the deceased deposed before the Trial Court that a Policeman had informed them that the deceased had been injured. However, they have not revealed the identity of the Policeman. Their assertion belies the deposition of Bishan Singh to the extent that they had shifted the deceased to Hospital in an injured condition. On appreciation learned Trial Court was right in holding that the testimony of PW-Bishan Singh was unreliable and no credit could be attached to his version more particularly as he had revealed the occurrence before Police after 10 days. His statement has been discarded for sound reasons. No credibility can be attached to his version. IO- Raghubir Singh appears to have made contrary statements in regard to lodging of FIR which he did not attribute to PW-Bishan Singh though lie claimed that PW-Bishan Singh was the sole eye witness. Viewed thus it can be safely said that the testimony of so called sole eye witness has been properly discarded. Now coming to second mode of proof in the nature of confirmation by subsequent events within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act be it seen that PWs Gulzari Lal and Vikas Kant have been examined as witnesses at the trial to prove the Disclosure Statement attributed to accused and subsequent recovery of alleged weapon of offence. The memo(s) have been marked as EXPW-G/4 and EXPW-G/5 respectively. According to PW- Gulzari Lal respondent stated in Police Station that she had hit one person with iron rod. PW- Vikas Kant did not know in which language respondent was talking. These witnesses thus failed to support the Disclosure Statement. The memo(s) have been marked as EXPW-G/4 and EXPW-G/5 respectively. According to PW- Gulzari Lal respondent stated in Police Station that she had hit one person with iron rod. PW- Vikas Kant did not know in which language respondent was talking. These witnesses thus failed to support the Disclosure Statement. They have not even spoken anything about the information that distinctly led to discovery of rod recovered in' pursuance of such Disclosure Statement. None of them has stated that the respondent had volunteered to affect the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. Their testimonies do not link the respondent with the alleged Disclosure Statement. This mode of proof too has failed to take off and evidence in regard to same has properly been rejected. According to Post-Mortem Report the deceased died due to multiple injures on head leading to excessive bleeding and extra haematoma leading to shock and cardio respiratory arrest. The injuries were ante mortem in nature. This establishes that the deceased died unnatural death which was homicidal in nature. However, there is no credible evidence to attribute the authorshi of murder of deceased to respondent. The conclusions drawn by learned Trial Court on appreciation of evidence that the same was loo fragile and highly unreliable has to be supported. On reappraisal of evidence, we are of the considered opinion that there are no very substantial and compelling reasons to take a view different than the one adopted by learned Trial Court. There is no merit in this Appeal and same is, accordingly, dismissed.