JUDGMENT : Badar Durrez Ahmad, J. COD. No. 264/2016 We have heard the counsel for the parties. The delay in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Counsel for the parties submit that the application seeking leave to appeal from the order of acquittal may be taken up today itself. MP No. 01/2017. 1. This is the application seeking leave to appeal from the judgment of acquittal dated 30.01.2016 rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag, in Sessions Case 46 of 2009 pertaining to FIR No. 188/2009 registered at Police Station, Anantnag under section 302 Ranbir Penal code. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Ghulam Ganie had having some dispute with the accused. It is also alleged that on 10th June, 2009 when the deceased was going towards the field, the accused Mehraj-ud-Din Wagay, (alias Soba Guru) blocked his way and without any reason beat him with the result he got injured and some unknown persons took him to Hospital. On that, an FIR was lodged, being FIR No. 188/2009 in Police Station, Anantnag under sections 341, 323 Ranbir Penal code. However, the injured Ghulam Ganie passed away in Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar (SKIMS) on 16.02.2009. Although, it is alleged that an injury memo had been prepared when the injured was taken to the District Hospital, but, the same has not been produced in evidence. However, a certificate was obtained from the doctor at SKIMS, wherein the death has been shown to have been caused by sudden cardiac arrest. It is, however, stated that the Medical Officer of the District Hospital, Anantnag had opined that the cause of death was evident from the report of SKIMS and that, therefore, there was no need of an autopsy of the dead body. 3. The entire case of the prosecution rested of four witnesses:- (i) PW-1, Mst. Raja Begum (wife of the deceased); (ii) PW-2, Ab. Majeed Wani; (iii) PW-3, Ab. Hamid Khan; (iv) PW-4, Imtiyaz Ahmad. 4. In so far as PW-1 is concerned, she is admittedly not an eye witness to the occurrence as in her statement before court she clearly stated that when she heard about the occurrence she went to the spot and took her husband from the place of occurrence to the Hospital. She also stated that the accused had no personal animosity with the deceased. 5. PW-2, Ab. She also stated that the accused had no personal animosity with the deceased. 5. PW-2, Ab. Majeed Wani deposed before the court that the deceased was known to him and he was his neighbor. He, in his examination in chief, stated that on the date of occurrence between 8 to 9 a.m. he saw the deceased walking with the help of a stick on the other side of the roads. The deceased is alleged to have abused the accused. Thereafter, the accused pelted a stone on him whereupon the deceased fell down. Then the accused and some other auto drivers took him to Hospital. The deceased died at SKIMS. 6. In cross-examination, this witness contradicted himself by stating that the deceased was slapped by the accused and he fell down. He also stated that he did not come to the help of the deceased. He also stated that the deceased had no injury, but did not speak. About 7/8 days later the injured died. It is evident from his evidence that (a) he has contradicted himself and, (b) he has also contradicted PW-1 who stated that she had taken the deceased to the Hospital, whereas this witness states that the accused and other auto drivers had taken him to hospital. 7. PW-3, Ab. Hamid Khan has stated that at about quarter to ten he had gone to purchase some grocery and the deceased was going towards Mission Hospital and that, in the meanwhile, the accused came towards the deceased and without any provocation slapped him as a result of which the deceased fell down and became unconscious. Then the accused brought an auto, boarded him in that and took him to Hospital. He further stated that Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat was the auto driver. In cross-examination, he stated that he had no knowledge about any dispute between accused and the deceased. He also stated that he did not hear any conversation between the accused and the deceased. He also stated that he saw the deceased lying unconscious on the ground and that when the accused and other persons took the deceased to Hospital he did not feel it to be his duty towards the deceased to take him to Hospital. He also did not inform the family members of the deceased. He also stated that he saw the deceased lying unconscious on the ground and that when the accused and other persons took the deceased to Hospital he did not feel it to be his duty towards the deceased to take him to Hospital. He also did not inform the family members of the deceased. He stated once again that he only saw the accused lying on the ground but, did not know how he fell down. 8. PW-4, Imtiyaz Ahmad was stated to be an eye witness. However, in his statement before the court, he categorically stated that he had heard that the accused had a scuffle with the deceased. He has brought the auto in which the deceased was taken to Hospital. 9. What is also important to note is that the Investigating Officer was not examined. The Doctor who gave the certificate was not examined. The postmortem examination of the deceased was not done. No injury report has been produced. There is no recovery of the alleged weapon of offence i.e., the stone which was allegedly thrown by the accused at the deceased. 10. The investigation has been conducted in a very slip-shod manner and the oral evidence produced by the prosecution is replete with contradictions and cannot be relied upon at all. 11. It is in these circumstances that the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused. In the case of an acquittal appeal the prosecution has to point out some perversity in the judgment or the fact that the trial court has ignored some admissible evidence. None of that has been indicated in the present case. Consequently, there is no question of granting leave to appeal. Leave is denied. The application is dismissed.