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. 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 alleged weapon of offence has not been proved; prosecution failed to make out a case of common intention against the appellants; prosecution evidence was full of inherent contradictions; prosecution case suffers from various discrepancies to the extent that genesis of crime is shrouded with mystery and is unbelievable. 8. Learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, argues that there exist major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. He would argue that conduct of PW-Pritam Dass, alleged eye witness, raised question mark about his credibility. He further argues that statement of the complainant has no evidentiary value when there is no cogent evidence to corroborate his statement. 8. Learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, argues that there exist major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. He would argue that conduct of PW-Pritam Dass, alleged eye witness, raised question mark about his credibility. He further argues that statement of the complainant has no evidentiary value when there is no cogent evidence to corroborate his statement. He further submits there is serious doubt regarding the recovery of alleged weapon of offence, as the alleged recovery memo has not been proved. Learned counsel places reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Bhaskarrao and others v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591 (ii) Krishnegowda and others v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98 (iii) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 Live Law (SC) 658. (iv) State of Rajasthan v. Madan @ Madaniya, (2019) 13 SCC 653 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, his statement is not to be discarded. They placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra, (2023 SCC Online SC 355). 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. As per the prosecution, there was enmity between the appellants and the complainant because of some land dispute. To prove the allegation of attack with hockey sticks and clubs causing injuries on head and legs of the complainant, prosecution, besides complainant, examined PWs Pritam Dass, Krishan lal, Harnam Dass, Ankush Kumar, Sanjay Kumar, Anil Sharma, Mohd. Sadiq, Bindu Sharma, Sunita Sharma, Sat Pal, Balwant Singh, Naresh Kumar Patwari and Dr. Ashok Verma. 12. Out of these prosecution witnesses, Harnam Dass, Sanjay Kumar, Anil Sharma, Mohd. Sadiq, Sat Paul, Balwant Singh, and Bindu Sharma have been declared hostile. PW Sanjay Kumar stated that when he heard the noise, he came on spot and found the complainant crying but he does not know as to who had beaten him. As per PW-Bindu Sharma, when she heard the cries of the complainant, she went on spot and the complainant informed her that he had a fall due to slip. PW-Harnam Dass during his examination-in-chief has denied the suggestion that the appellants had beaten the complainant. As per PW-Bindu Sharma, when she heard the cries of the complainant, she went on spot and the complainant informed her that he had a fall due to slip. PW-Harnam Dass during his examination-in-chief has denied the suggestion that the appellants had beaten the complainant. In cross-examination, the witness stated that complainant is his nephew and the appellants are not related to him. According to him, father of the appellants was supporting the wife of the complainant, as a result whereof, there is enmity between the complainant and father of the appellant. This witness even deposed that no occurrence had taken place. As per PW-Anil Kumar, he was working in his field, when he heard some noise, from the land of complainant, however, when he went on spot, complainant did not tell anything to him. He has also stated that he has not seen the appellants at the place of occurrence. PW Mohd. Sadiq has stated that he has no knowledge about the occurrence. PW-Sat Pal in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the seizure memo dated 28th December, 2002 bears his signatures but when he signed the said documents it was blank. PW-Balwant Singh, has admitted his signatures on the seizure memo dated 28.12.2002 but denied its contents. 13. According to PW-Ankush Kumar, at the time of occurrence he was inside his house and heard some noise. When he came out, he saw two persons running away in the nallah but could not identify them. On reaching near his uncle-complainant, he found that he was bleeding from his head and his leg was broken. The witness has not nominated any of the assailants. According to PW-Pritam Dass, at the time of occurrence he was in his house. On hearing cries of the complainant, he came out of his compound and there he had seen the appellants beating the complainant. He has deposed that he did not go on spot. In his cross-examination, the witness deposed that place of occurrence was located at a distance of 150 yards from his house and in between his house and the place of occurrence, there is a nallah and large number of small trees were there. Conduct of the witness is quite unnatural because as per him, he saw the appellants beating his cousin but did not go on spot to save him. Conduct of the witness is quite unnatural because as per him, he saw the appellants beating his cousin but did not go on spot to save him. It is difficult to believe that the witness could have seen the occurrence. 14. The Trial court while deciding the case had appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses examined before it. PW Sham Lal is the injured who deposed that on 23.10.2002 at about 11.00 A.M. when he was working in his field, he was attacked by the accused with hockey sticks and clubs causing injuries on his head and legs. The prosecution had cited PWs Harnam Dass, Ankush Kumar, Sanjay Kumar, Bindu Sharma and Sunita Sharma as eye-witnesses. However, out of these witnesses, PWs Sanjay Kumar and Bindu Sharma turned hostile and PW Sanjay Kumar stated that he had heard the noises, he came on spot and found PW Sham Lal crying but he did not know who had beaten him. According to PW Bindu Sharma, she heard the cries of PW Sham Lal and on reaching out to him, she was told by the injured that he had a fall due to slip. The other eye witnesses Pritam Dass, Sunita Sharma, Ankush Sharma have, however, supported the injured witnesses in all the respects. Though there is enough evidence on record to show that there was previous enmity between the accused and the injured PW Sham Lal; and the trial court has rightly observed that this enmity is a double-edged weapon, as it can offer the motive to accused to commit crime and it can also lead to their false implication. 15. While scrutinizing the statements of the other witnesses carefully, it has been found that PW Ankush Kumar was inside his house and had come out on hearing noise and had seen two persons running away in the Nallah and when he reached near his uncle PW Sham Lal, he found that he was bleeding from his head and his leg was fractured, who told him that the accused had beaten him by hockey sticks. This witness, however, had not named any of the assailants, having reached the place of occurrence after it was over. This witness, however, had not named any of the assailants, having reached the place of occurrence after it was over. PW Pritam Dass also stated that he was at his house when he heard cries of PW Sham Lal and on hearing the same, he came out in his compound from where he saw that the accused were beating up PW Sham Lal. However, his statement was discarded by the trial court and rightly so as he claimed to have seen the place of occurrence and the accused committing the offence from his house at the place of occurrence which was across Nallah and there were trees, therefore, it was not a place visible to him so he was not believed by the trial court. 16. PW Sunita Sharma, wife of the injured PW Sham Lal had stated that she was inside her house and on hearing cries, she had reached the place of occurrence and found her husband being beaten up by all the accused/appellants. However, her presence on spot was also doubtful as in her statement before the police, she had stated that she was standing on the road so as to go to the market but in her statement before the court she has stated that she was in her house at the time of occurrence. The statement of the wife of the injured was, therefore, discarded by the trial court on this count. PW Dr. Ashok Verma stated that he had found lacerated wounds on the person of the PW Sham Lal on his legs and left parietal region and that these injuries could be possible by blows of hockey and clubs, which have been shown to him by the police. 17. The injured PW Sham Lal had very vividly stated that on 30.10.2002 at about 11.00 A.M. when he was in his fields, the accused came there and attacked him. Accused Narinder Pal Singh was carrying a club, whereas other two accused were carrying hockey sticks, that accused Narinder Pal Singh gave a blow of club on his head and he fell down, whereas the other accused gave him blows of hockey sticks on his right leg which got fractured. Accused Narinder Pal Singh was carrying a club, whereas other two accused were carrying hockey sticks, that accused Narinder Pal Singh gave a blow of club on his head and he fell down, whereas the other accused gave him blows of hockey sticks on his right leg which got fractured. This version of the injured, however, was contrary to his statement under section 161 CrPC, wherein he had deposed that accused Devender Pal Singh had gave him a blow of hockey stick on his right leg and accused Gursharan Singh was carrying a club and had hit him on his left leg and on pointing the variation to him, he claimed that the version given before the court was correct. 18. The incriminating statements besides the injured witness have been made only by his close relatives and the evidentiary value of the statements has to be considered by the court. Though there is no absolute rule that the evidence of the related witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses, law, however, requires to have independent witnesses when the evidence of related witnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy. Based on this principle, the Apex Court in a case titled Krishnegowda & Ors. v. State of Karantaka reported as (2017) 13 SCC 98 had set aside the conviction in a murder case. 19. When some of the witnesses had turned hostile and there were material contradictions in the statements of the injured PW Sham Lal and of his cousin Pritam Dass and wife Sunita Sharma, it was not safe to record conviction based on this shaky evidence. The Trial court had acquitted the accused/appellants of the charge of attempt to murder punishable under section 307 RPC. However, in the considered opinion of this court, in view of wavering statements of the injured, and all the other prosecution witnesses, who have somehow deposed against the appellants/accused have also material contradictions, which cannot be ignored as they go to the root of the prosecution case, so much so, that even injured witness has also made contradictory statement with regard to use of weapon and the accused who had used that weapon against him. The wife and son of the injured have also not been believed by the trial court while discussion made in the impugned judgment, therefore, conviction was recorded only based on the statement of the injured witness. 20. Since the place of occurrence was a disputed land between the appellants and the injured, therefore, appellants had not been charged under the offence punishable under Section 447 RPC. The use of club as a weapon had only been introduced by the prosecution after the medical report by showing the weapon including the club to the doctor, before that there was only a story of use of sticks and hockeys and not of the club. The seizure of the weapons of offence had also not been proved as both the PWs Balwant Singh and Sat Pal in whose presence the weapons were stated to have been recovered, had not supported prosecution story and turned hostile, therefore, the recovery itself is not proved. 21. The conduct of PW Pritam Dass, cousin of the injured, was also not natural, as he had stated that he had not accompanied the injured to hospital, as to why a person of such a close relation would not attend his cousin in a critical condition. His statement is also contradicted by his son Sanjay Kumar, who denied the occurrence as well as presence of his father PW Prtiam Dass and PW Sunita Sharma, wife of the injured at the place of occurrence. PW Harnam Dass, an uncle of the injured, had also denied the occurrence. PW Dr. Ashok Verma has stated that he had neither treated nor referred victim to Jammu Medical College Hospital and gave opinion based on GMC report only. Therefore, in absence of the examination by this witness of the injured, he cannot be stated to be a competent witness to depose with regard to the medical opinion. 22. The weapons had not been recovered from the place of occurrence and were shown to have been recovered later during investigation from the possession of the accused. However, such a recovery, without there being any disclosure cannot be stated to have been proved, as the same should have been preceded by the disclosure by the accused. The statements of the witnesses are having variations and this inconsistency has been maintained at all stages by them. However, such a recovery, without there being any disclosure cannot be stated to have been proved, as the same should have been preceded by the disclosure by the accused. The statements of the witnesses are having variations and this inconsistency has been maintained at all stages by them. The prosecution had not seized the blood-stained soil for forensic examination, as that would have given blood group for comparison with that of the victim. The investigating agency has, thus, missed this aspect of the evidence as well. All the weapons had been shown to have been seized by one seizure memo, but that seems to be impossible, as the weapons had not been seized from the place of occurrence, immediately after the occurrence, but at a later date. 23. For the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove, it is held that the trial court has misdirected itself to record conviction of the appellants herein for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/325 read with 34 RPC vide the impugned judgment for the reasons assigned hereinabove. The appeal is, thus, allowed and the impugned judgment/order is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. Their personal and bail bonds shall stand discharged. 24. Trial Court record, along with copy of this judgment, is ordered to be sent down to the trial court for information. 25. Appeal along with pending application(s) is accordingly disposed of.