JUDGMENT : 1. The present application has been filed seeking leave to file appeal against judgment dated 27.02.2018 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua (for short, trial court) vide which respondents have been acquitted in FIR No. 85 of 2012 for offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 34 of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) of Police Station, Hiranagar. 2. An overview of the background facts is that on 20.06.2012 at 10:00 a.m., the informant Mohan Singh (PW-1) was allegedly attacked by respondents at village Sunkhal with stones, fists and blows, as a result whereof, he suffered grievous injuries on his head and left ear. The injured was shifted to Hiranagar Hospital for treatment, from where he was referred to Government Medical College and Hospital (GMC&H), Jammu for further treatment. The statement of the injured was reduced into writing by ASI Daljeet Singh, Incharge, Police Post, Dinga Amb, at GMC&H, Jammu, on the basis of which, aforesaid FIR came to be registered against respondents and investigation was entrusted to ASI-Daljeet Singh (PW-8). 3. It surfaced during investigation that accused-Suresh Kumar, respondent No.1 herein used to abuse injured Mohan Singh on his mobile phone. Few days prior to the occurrence, the injured confronted respondent No.1-accused, Suresh Kumar and sought reasons for hurling abuses on him, which was denied by accused-Suresh Kumar. On 20.06.2012, accused-Suresh Kumar came to village Sunkhal in Matador bearing registration No. JK02Q-6287 in the afternoon, where he met the injured and there was hot exchange of words between the duo and the injured left the spot. However, at about 10:00 p.m., accused-Suresh Kumar went to the house of the injured, called him outside and when injured reached near a well, he found all respondents-accused persons standing there who caught hold of him and made a murderous assault by hitting him on his head with stones. The victim fell unconscious on spot due to impact of injuries and was evacuated to the hospital. The investigation culminated into filing of final report envisaged under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against respondents for the aforesaid offences. 4. Respondents were charged by the trial court for offences under sections 307, 323, 341 and 34 RPC whereby they pleaded innocence, prompting the trial court to ask for the prosecution evidence and prosecution has examined ten witnesses in support of the charges. 4. Respondents were charged by the trial court for offences under sections 307, 323, 341 and 34 RPC whereby they pleaded innocence, prompting the trial court to ask for the prosecution evidence and prosecution has examined ten witnesses in support of the charges. After closure of the prosecution evidence, respondents-accused in their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating imputations arrogated to them in the prosecution evidence by stating that false case was foisted against them and two witnesses were examined in defence. 5. Having marshalled and analysed the prosecution evidence in detail, the learned trial court has concluded that appellant/prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, as a result whereof, respondents were acquitted of the charges as mentioned at the outset. 6. Appellant-State has questioned the impugned judgment on the usual and conventional grounds that learned trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right perspective and has recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal despite sufficient material available on record to convict the respondents. 7. Mr. Deewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG appearing for the appellant State has reiterated the grounds of challenge urged in the memo of appeal. 8. Out of ten witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-3 Romesh Singh is witness to seizure of stone, PW-4 Kuldeep Singh and PW-5 Mohan Singh are witnesses to arrest memo of accused, PW-6 Khazan Chand Patwari Halqa Sunkhal is the revenue expert who has proved the revenue extracts Ext.P-7 and Ext.P-7/1, PW-7 Dr. Ashwani Kumar is the medical expert who has proved the medical certificated Ext.P-8 with respect to examination of the injured-PW-1 and PW-8 Daljeet Singh is Investigating Officer. Besides these formal witnesses, PW-9 Karanjeet Singh and PW-10 Gurnam Singh are two other investigating officers who have conducted partial investigation of the case. It is, therefore, evident that since out of ten witnesses examined by the prosecution, eight witnesses are formal witnesses, therefore, entire prosecution hinges on the testimonial potency of injured, PW-1-Mohan Singh. 9. The case of the prosecution is that informant-Mohan Singh was beaten by respondents/accused on 20.06.2012 by hitting him on his head with stones causing him grievous injuries and he was also beaten with fists and blows. However, injured PW-1 has deposed in the trial court that accused-Sukhdev and one Kalu came to his house in the evening to explore compromise between them. However, injured PW-1 has deposed in the trial court that accused-Sukhdev and one Kalu came to his house in the evening to explore compromise between them. He went along with them, however, when he reached near a well, accused-Suresh Kumar came to the spot armed with a country made rifle which was hand over to accused-Sukhdev, who hit him with the butt of said riffle on the left side of his head, as a result whereof, he fell unconscious. The inured also stated that rest of the accused also beat him with fists and blows and they fled from the spot leaving him behind in a pool of blood. It is also stated by the injured that PW-Kalu tried to save him but he was caught hold by accused-Sukhdev and was threatened with life. It is pertinent to mention that statement of the injured, PW-1 was reduced into writing at GMC&H, Jammu, on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered against the respondents and PW-1 in his deposition has also admitted that he had stated in his initial statement (Ext.P-1) recorded at GMC&H, Jammu and also in his statement under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., recorded before the Magistrate, that respondents-accused had hit him with a stone, besides fists and blows, resulting in grievous injuries to him. However, injured, PW-1 in his statement before the trial court had denied having made any such statement before the police or a Magistrate by reiterating that, in fact, he was hit by accused-Sukhdev with the butt of rifle on his head. 10. I concur with the observation of learned trial court that this is a significant improvement made by injured PW-1 in his statement before the trial court, which is sufficient to dislodge the prosecution stand that injured was hit on left side of his head by respondents with a stone. The statement of investigating Officer, Daljeet Singh, PW-8 also assumes significance in this respect, as he stated that no rifle was seized by him in the case and he has admitted that it was stated by PW-1 in his initial statement, Ext.P-1 that he was attacked by respondent-accused No.1 with a stone. 11. As noted earlier, it also surfaced in the testimony of the injured that PW-Kala tried to save him from the clutches of respondents but he was caught hold by accused-Sukhdev and was threatened with life. 11. As noted earlier, it also surfaced in the testimony of the injured that PW-Kala tried to save him from the clutches of respondents but he was caught hold by accused-Sukhdev and was threatened with life. However, PW-2, Sikander Singh @ Kala in his testimony before the trial court has categorically denied this fact by stating that he came to the spot on receiving a phone call from one Rajinder Singh about the incident and found PW-1 lying on the spot in an injured condition, from where he was shifted to the hospital. Therefore, testimony of the injured, PW-1 that PW-Kala tried to save him from accused stands falsified. It is also pertinent to mention that as per the prosecution case, the only eye witness to the occurrence was Rajinder Singh whose statement was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., however, he has not been produced by the prosecution during trial. 12. For what has been observed and discussed above, it is clear that it is the injured himself who has dislodged the prosecution case that he was hit on the left side of his head by the respondents with a stone, fists and blows. He has introduced altogether a new story and made a significant improvement in his initial statement Ext.P-1, on the basis of which, aforesaid FIR came to be registered as also in his statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate that he was hit by respondents with a stone. If the statement of the injured is glanced over, PW-Kala came to his house along with accused Sukhdev for effecting compromise between them and later when PW-1 was allegedly attacked by respondents, PW-Kalu, as per the version of PW-1, made an endeavour to save him from the clutches of the accused, however, PW-Kalu has categorically denied his presence at the scene of occurrence by clearly stating that he reached the place of occurrence only after the occurrence was over and found the injured lying on the spot wherefrom he was evacuated to the hospital for treatment. 13. Be it noted that Investigating Officer has neither find any blood on the spot nor seized blood stained clothes of the injured which also casts doubt on the prosecution story. 14. Viewed thus, prosecution evidence having analysed and examined in its entirety would not inspire confidence to sustain conviction of the respondents. 15. 13. Be it noted that Investigating Officer has neither find any blood on the spot nor seized blood stained clothes of the injured which also casts doubt on the prosecution story. 14. Viewed thus, prosecution evidence having analysed and examined in its entirety would not inspire confidence to sustain conviction of the respondents. 15. Having regard to what has been observed and discussed above, the present application filed by the appellant-State for leave to appeal is dismissed. As a result, the proposed appeal, being devoid of any merit, is also dismissed and impugned judgment is upheld. 16. Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds.