JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.09.2009 ( for brevity ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reasi ( for brevity ‘trial Court’) in case titled State of J&K Versus Bhagat Ram for commission of offence under Section 326 RPC, whereby the respondent/accused stands acquitted of the charges. 2. The impugned judgment is being assailed in the instant appeal, precisely on the following grounds:- (i) that the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures and the conclusion drawn by the trial Court is against the weight of evidence; (ii) that the Ld. Trial Court has mis-appreciated the evidence on record and has not considered the statements of prosecution witnesses in their totality and has not appreciated in letter and spirit. (iii) that there is enough evidence on record which warrants the conviction and sentence of the accused/respondent for commission of offences under section 326 RPC. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The allegations against the respondents/accused as per prosecution case are that Police Station, Reasi registered an FIR No.165/2006 on 25.10.2006 for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 RPC on verbal report of complainant, namely, Prem Lal S/o Chatro Ram R/o Kheral Tehsil Reasi, alleging that the boundary of his land is connected with the land of the accused/respondent on which the accused/respondent has old enmity with the complainant. On 25.10.2006 at about 11 a.m. he was removing stone from the land and keeping the same on boundary wall, the accused/respondent who was standing on his field nearby came close to him and started abusing him and asked as to why he is collecting stone from his field, complainant replied that he is keeping the stone in his own land, the accused became rash and with criminal intention took a stone from the field and threw it on the right arm of the complainant. The accused/respondent also beat the complainant with fists and blows. The Police Station, Reasi recorded this verbal report in the Roznamcha vide DD Report No.13 dated 25.10.2006 and afterwards registered a case vide FIR No.165/2006 for commission of offences punishable under Section 325 RPC and started the investigation. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and obtained the medical report/ certificate. The Police Station, Reasi recorded this verbal report in the Roznamcha vide DD Report No.13 dated 25.10.2006 and afterwards registered a case vide FIR No.165/2006 for commission of offences punishable under Section 325 RPC and started the investigation. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and obtained the medical report/ certificate. Upon receiving the medical report of the complainant, offence under Section 326 RPC was found to have been committed instead of Section 325 RPC and, accordingly, offence under Section 326 RPC was substituted. Investigating Officer closed the investigation in the shape of challan against the accused/respondent. 5. The challan was presented before the trial on 17.10.2006 for judicial determination of the commission of offences under Section 326 RPC and the accused/respondent was charge sheeted on 15.12.2006 for the commission of offence under Section 326 RPC and during the trial of the case the prosecution had produced 8 witnesses cited in the challan. 6. In the present case, as per the judgment dated 30.09.2009 the trial Court has acquitted the accused/ respondent of charges as prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt. 7. In order to find out as to whether prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent/accused beyond shadow of doubt, it will be appropriate to give a brief resume of the prosecution evidence available on record. PW Prem Lal, complainant, has deposed that on 25.10.2006 he was collecting stone from his field and accused started abusing him. He asked him to speak with manner and on that the accused with criminal intention came on his back side with a stone in his hand and intended to hit the same on his head but he quickly put his arm on the head with the result the stone hit on the arm and his arm broke down. The accused/respondent also drag him to his compound to do away with his life and afterwards he visited the Police Station, Reasi accompanied by his brothers Balak Ram and Hans Raj and lodged a verbal report. Upon cross-examination he has deposed that he had received injury with one stone and he felt giddy and fell unconscious on the ground and after 10/15 minutes he re-gained conscious and found the accused/respondent working in the field. Upon cross-examination he has deposed that he had received injury with one stone and he felt giddy and fell unconscious on the ground and after 10/15 minutes he re-gained conscious and found the accused/respondent working in the field. He went to his home and narrated the occurrence to his wife and children and his wife called his brothers Balak Ram and Hans Raj and informed them the occurrence. He also narrated the occurrence and showed them the place of occurrence while going to the Police Station at about 1 p.m. PW Om Parkash has deposed that on 25.10.2006 he reached home from duty and heard noise and saw from the window that accused/respondent was quarrelling with the complainant, whereas the complainant was preaching stone from the land. The accused also took a stone from the land and threw the same on the arm of complainant. Kaka Ram and two children were also present there on the spot and except them none other was there. In cross examination he has admitted that it is true that a case instituted by the accused/respondent against him and the complainant is pending disposal in the Court and after that he is not in speaking terms with the accused. PW Bharat Bhushan has deposed that on 25.10.2006 he went to the house of complainant and on reaching near his house the parties to the case were seen quarrelling and he saw that accused/respondent was beating complainant with fists and the complainant was complaining that accused has thrown a stone and broke down his arm. PW Rattan Lal has deposed that he was going to in-laws house at Tali More and while passing nearby the house of complainant he heard noise and went on spot and saw that the quarrel was going on and the parties were beating each other with fists and blows. The accused/respondent hit a stone on the right arm of the complainant and ran away from the spot and many people gathered there on spot. Upon cross-examination the witness deposed that when he reached on spot 2-3 persons were present there out of whom 1-2 were women. The complainant and accused/respondent were beating each other with fists and blows and he took the complainant to his home in presence of other people. Complainant did not fell unconscious. Upon cross-examination the witness deposed that when he reached on spot 2-3 persons were present there out of whom 1-2 were women. The complainant and accused/respondent were beating each other with fists and blows and he took the complainant to his home in presence of other people. Complainant did not fell unconscious. He stated that before his reaching the quarrel was going on and on his reaching on spot the same went off. PW Mohd Amin has deposed that on 25.10.2006 at about 11 am he was going for bath towards Kheral and in the way he heard hue and cry and saw that accused had hit with a stone on the arm of complainant-Prem Lal. He went on spot and refrain them from fighting whereas the PW Om Parkash had reached on spot in his presence. Upon cross-examination he stated that 10/12 people gathered on spot. When he reached on spot the complainant and accused/respondent were quarrelling with each other and the people present there were forbidding them for leaving each other and that the complainant did not fell unconscious. PW Hans Raj has deposed that on 1.11.2006 police visited Kheral where a quarrel had taken place between complainant-Prem Lal and accused-Bhagat Ram and the stone with which arm of Prem Lal was broken was seized by police in his presence. PW Madan Lal has deposed that police seized a stone in his presence and prepared the seizure memo. PW Dr. Sanjeev Bharti has deposed that he examined Prem Lal on 25.10.2006 at SDH Reasi and after examined issued the certificate. 8. Perusal of the evidence on record tends to show that there are glaring contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and they have not corroborated the statement of complainant. The Complainant has stated that he felt giddy by the hit of stone and fell un-conscious on the ground. As per the complainant at the time of occurrence none other was present on the place of occurrence except one Kaka Ram, whereas PW OM Parkash has deposed that he was watching the occurrence from his window and found the accused/respondent and complainant quarrelling with each other and brothers of complainant and two children were present on spot. He has further stated that accused/respondent and complainant has scuffle with each other. He has further stated that 4-5 persons had already reached on spot before him. He has further stated that accused/respondent and complainant has scuffle with each other. He has further stated that 4-5 persons had already reached on spot before him. As per the statement of PW Bharat Bhushan he had seen the parties quarrelling with each other from nearby place of occurrence and as per his statement 4-5 persons had already on spot, he along with persons present on spot lifted the complainant to hospital. This witness also stated that complainant did not fell unconscious. 9. The statements of the eye witnesses does not corroborate the statement of the complainant who has stated that he fell unconscious on spot and after regaining conscious he firstly went to his house and narrated the incident to his wife and children and afterwards went to the Police Station with his brothers. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are contrary to the statement made by the complainant, wherein they admitted the presence of various persons on spot, whereas the complainant has stated that none else except Kaka Ram was present on spot. 10. The other witness PW Rattan Lal has stated that he was passing nearby the house of complainant and on hearing noise he went on spot and saw the parties beating each other with fists and blows. According to him, accused/respondent threw a stone and broke the right arm of the complainant and then fled away from the spot. He took the complainant to his house and further stated that complainant did not fell unconscious. This witness has stated that accused ran away from the spot, whereas complainant has stated that when he regained conscious he saw accused working in his field. He has also stated that complainant and accused/respondent were beating each other and he took the complainant to his house, which is contrary to the statement of complainant who has stated that when he regained conscious he went to his home. The other PW Mohd Amin, has deposed that on hearing hue and cry he went on spot and before him 10/12 persons had come on spot including Om Parkash. As per this witness, when he reached on spot he saw accused and complainant scuffling each other and the persons on spot were forbidding them to leave each other. This witness also stated that complainant did not fell unconscious. As per this witness, when he reached on spot he saw accused and complainant scuffling each other and the persons on spot were forbidding them to leave each other. This witness also stated that complainant did not fell unconscious. The statement of this witness is also contrary to the statement made by the complainant that there was scuffle on spot and complainant did not fell unconscious and also there were 10/12 persons present on spot. 11. Having considered the evidence recorded before the trial Court and the record on file, it is held that the trial Court had appreciated and analyzed the evidence correctly and no fault can be found with the conclusion drawn by the trial Court. The evidence on record, as held above, suffers from major material contradictions which create serious doubt in the mind of the Court about the veracity of the prosecution case. In short, the prosecution case, as projected and the evidence led to prove it, does not inspire confidence of the Court. The occurrence itself is highly doubtful. 12. In my view, in facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant has failed to make out a case for interference in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. This appeal is, therefore, found to be without merit and the same is, accordingly dismissed.