Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 756 (JK)

State of J&K v. Mohsin Iqbal

2017-08-28

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.09.2013 passed by the trial court, by which the respondents have been acquitted of offences under sections 307/324/323/34 RPC. 2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 13.11.2002, the complainant Rukhsar Ahmad lodged a written report with the Police Station, Thanamandi that on 13.11.2002 when he was travelling from Bharote to Thanamandi in a Mini Bus, he had left some balance amount with the Conductor of the vehicle. When he demanded the same, the Conductor-Mohsin Iqbal and Driver-Mohd Shafiq started quarreling with him. Thereafter, he left the balance with the Conductor and went to school. While returning from the school at 2.00 p.m., he again boarded on the same vehicle and the Conductor of the vehicle demanded fare from him. The Complainant told the Conductor that in the morning, he had left the balance with him. On this, the respondents started abusing him. Respondent-Mohsin Iqbal asked the driver to stop the vehicle and thereafter they started beating him with a criminal intention to kill him. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, offences under sections 307/324/323/34 RPC were registered against the respondents. The Police after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the respondents for the offences as aforesaid. The trial court vide impugned judgment, acquitted the respondents of the offences alleged against them. 4. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the testimonies of two eye witnesses, namely, PW-3 Javed Iqbal and PW 4-Mohd Ashraf in its correct perspective and ought to have relied upon the aforesaid eye witnesses. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. PW 1-Mustafa Kamal has deposed that he does not remember the date, month and the year of the occurrence. He has further stated that the quarrel took place between complainant PW 2-Rukhsar Ahmad and the accused, resultantly, Rukhsar Ahmad got injured He has further stated that the complainant has moved the application for lodging the FIR, he identified his signature on the application. The aforesaid witness has, thus, contradicted his own version in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr. The aforesaid witness has, thus, contradicted his own version in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. PW 2-Rukhsar Ahmad has deposed that the quarrel took place inside the bus, whereas PW-3 Javed Iqbal, who was eye witness to the incident deposed that he was travelling in the bus when the Conductor demanded the fare from PW-Rukhsar Ahmad. In cross examination he has deposed that the quarrel took place in the field. Accordingly, PW 4 -Mohd Ashraf has deposed that when the injured boarded of the bus, the accused Mohsin Iqbal gave a blow of rod on the head of PW-2 Rukhsar Ahmad and the accused No. 3 was not present on spot. Thus, Mohd Ashraf-PW 4 has contradicted the versions of PW-2. 6. It is also pertinent to mention here that PW 4 Mohd Ashraf in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C has stated that the quarrel took place in the field is not correct. According to the prosecution case wooden stick was the weapon of offence, which was seized by the Police. However, PW 4-Mohd Ashraf has stated that complainant was hit by an iron rod. PW 5 Mohd Javed has deposed that quarrel took place inside the bus. Thus, he has contradicted the other prosecution witnesses. PW 8-Dr. Mohd Iqbal has deposed that the weapon of offence was not shown to him. He has further deposited that all the injuries mentioned in the certificate are possible by fall. The trial court has noticed that testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions. 7. The trial court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the trial court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse (see Ram Swaroop and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa ( 2015 11 SCC 124 ). 8. 8. From perusal of the judgment of the trial court, we find that the findings recorded by the trial court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.