JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, in File No. 10/Cr. Appeal in case titled ‘Pritam Singh and others vs. State of J&K’ on 01.11.2008, whereby the conviction recorded by the trial Court vide order dated 31.07.2003, has been set aside and the accused/respondents were acquitted. The said order of acquittal, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, has been challenged in this appeal, precisely on the ground that the trial Court, after properly appreciating the evidence, convicted the accused/respondents vide judgment dated 01.11.2008 and sentenced them to imprisonment. 2. There was enough substantial evidence on record to justify the conviction so recorded by the trial Court but the learned Sessions Judge, has by misappreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused by setting aside the judgment passed by the trial Court. The order of acquittal, thus, recorded in appeal is bad in law and against the evidence. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court as well as the judgment passed by the trial Court and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, on 30.06.2002, the accused (respondents herein) removed the Mangoes from the trees belonging to the complainant and on 30.07.2002, when complainant Sunita Devi enquired from the accused as to why they had taken away the Mangoes, accused entered into the compound of the complainant while they were armed with sticks and inflicted injuries to her and her husband and also abused them. 5. A report was made regarding such occurrence which was investigated by the Police and on investigation, the Police found the involvement of the accused in the alleged occurrence and found offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 34 of RPC established against them and, accordingly, presented a Challan before the Court of JMIC, Nowshera. 6. The trial Court recorded the statements of the respondents accused under Section 242 of CrPC and put the allegations to them to which they pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. To prove the allegations, the prosecution produced and examined PWs Sunita Devi, Sat Paul, Babu Ram, Girdhari Lal, Dr. Khem Raj Khajuria, Dr. 6. The trial Court recorded the statements of the respondents accused under Section 242 of CrPC and put the allegations to them to which they pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. To prove the allegations, the prosecution produced and examined PWs Sunita Devi, Sat Paul, Babu Ram, Girdhari Lal, Dr. Khem Raj Khajuria, Dr. K.K. Sharma, Surgeon Specialist, ASI Isher Singh (I.O) and the I.O. recorded the statement of the accused in terms of Section 342 CrPC. The respondents accused produced in defence DW Subash Chander and Iqbal Kour as witnesses. 7. After recording the statement of the witnesses, the trial Court fond offences punishable under Sections 451 and 323 of RPC established against the accused and, accordingly, sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 451 of RPC and three months for offence under Section 323 of RPC and also fine of Rs. 1000/- to each of the accused. 8. The said judgment, convicting and sentencing the accused was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in appeal and the learned Sessions Judge, after having appreciated the evidence on record found that there are material contradictions in the evidence produced by the prosecution and the evidence is such on which conviction cannot be recorded, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, held that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court was not sustainable and the same is not based on sound principles of law and while setting aside the judgment, acquitted the accused. 9. The record of the trial Court would reveal that the accused were prosecuted and tried on the allegation that on 30.06.2002, they removed Mangoes from the trees of Sunita Devi in her absence and on 03.07.2002, at about 07:00 AM, when she enquired from them as to why they had removed the Mangoes, accused abused her and thereafter they armed with sticks with criminal intention trespassed into the compound of the complainant, abused her and her husband and also assaulted them with sticks and inflicted injuries to them. These allegations were denied by the accused. 10. Now, on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is to be seen as to whether the trial Court was right in convicting them or the order acquittal recorded by the appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and law. 11. These allegations were denied by the accused. 10. Now, on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is to be seen as to whether the trial Court was right in convicting them or the order acquittal recorded by the appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and law. 11. Whether or not the offences have been established by the prosecution, the evidence produced is required to be appreciated. It will be appropriate to give a brief resume of the prosecution evidence available on record which is reproduced as under: “PWl Sunita Devi has deposed that on 13th July, 2002 accused Rajesh Kumar removed Mangoes from the tree in her land when they had gone to attend the marriage, her husband saw the accused removing the Mangoes, however, latter fled away on that day. She stated that on 3rd July, 2002 when accused was passing through her compound she asked the reasons for removing the Mangoes and on this accused started abusing her and thereafter all the three accused, armed with sticks entered into the compound of her house, and started beating her. The accused-Rajesh inflicted injuries on her back and nose. The accused-Kamlesh Kour felled her down and beat her with stick by sitting on her breast and catching hold from her hair. The accused-Pritam Singh also inflicted injuries on her back, arms and, legs. She further stated that her elder brother-in-law Girhari Lai and Babu Ram reached on spot and saved them from the accused. On cross examination she stated that her husband reached at home at about 2.30 P.M. on 30.06.2003 and saw accused- Rajesh Kumar and One Pritam Singh removed the mangoes, hey did not lodged any report with respect to the theft of the Mangoes. That accused, had removed 5/6 baskets of Mangoes. They were entangled in legal battle with respect to land since 3/4 years. She denied that they had beaten the accused on 03.07.2002 at 7 a.m and had fabricated this false case. PW 2 Sat paul has deposed that accused-Pritam Singh was his real brother. On 13th July, 2002 accused Rajesh took away mangos from his tree and when he, enquired from the accused persons, latter started quarreling with him. He further stated that on 3rd July, 2002. PW 2 Sat paul has deposed that accused-Pritam Singh was his real brother. On 13th July, 2002 accused Rajesh took away mangos from his tree and when he, enquired from the accused persons, latter started quarreling with him. He further stated that on 3rd July, 2002. he was at the house and his wife was sitting in the compound, the accused Rajesh was passing by his house when his wife enquired from him as to why he had removed the mangoes. All the three accused came and started beating his wife, he came out however, and accused started beating him also. PW 3 Babu Ram has deposed that on 3rd July, 2002 at about 7.P.M. he was coming towards Nowshera and when he was passing by the house of complainant he heard noise that he went to the house of complainant and found, that accused Kamlesh Kour was sitting on the chest of Sunita Devi and was beating and abusing her and the accused Pritam and Naresh were beating Sat Paul with sticks. Sunita Devi had sustained in juries on nose and head and Sat Paul also got injured on both the arms, head, and back. PW Girdhari Lal deposed that on 3rd July, 2002 at about 7 a. m he was going to attend his duty at village Chadaralla. When he reached near the house of accused he heard noise and rushed on spot. The accused Kamlesh Kour had fallen the complainant on earth and beat with sticks and blows and had nabbed her by catching her from her hairs. That accused Pritam Singh and Rajesh started fleeing way while finding him. He stated that PW Sat Paul had sustained injuries on head and blood was oozing from the same. PW Dr. Khem Raj Sharma deposed that he examined one Sunita Devi w/o Sat Paul resident of Ghai on 3rd July, 2002 at 9.10 and observed the following injuries on her person. 1. Lacerated wound over the saddle of nose margin irregular 1-1/2 X 1/2 cm skin deep covered with wet clot. 2. Lathi marks (a) 4 inc x 2 cm over the lower part of chest in the posterior auxiliary line. To rule out fracture the patient was advised to consult Dr. K .K. Sharma Surgeon specialist for which he advised X-ray Chest and referred to Radiologist Distt. Hospital Rajouri for Radiological opinion. 2. Lathi marks (a) 4 inc x 2 cm over the lower part of chest in the posterior auxiliary line. To rule out fracture the patient was advised to consult Dr. K .K. Sharma Surgeon specialist for which he advised X-ray Chest and referred to Radiologist Distt. Hospital Rajouri for Radiological opinion. b) 10 cm X 2 cm over the lateral surface of right leg red in colour, c) 2 inch x 2 cm over the anterior surface of right leg. No evidence of fracture. 3. Haemotone inch in diameter over the lap occipital region. That in his opinion injuries No. l, 2 (b) and (c) were simple in nature caused by blunt object within one day. That police produced X-rays on 20th July, 2002 with the report of radiologist that no bony injury was there. So, injury No. 2 (a) was also simple in nature caused by blunt object within 24 hours. That the certificate attached with the file was issued by him under his own hand. It was marked as EXPi.- N. That on the same day and same time he examined another injured Sat Paul son of Bachitru resident of Ghai and observed the following injuries on his person;- 1. 1. inc X 1 cm lacerated wound over the forehead lose to hair-line in the midline margin irregular and bleeded on cleaning. 2. two conturious over the occipital regain 1 incin diameter, red in colour 3. Continued terminal Phaillins of middle finger with bleeding from sunderneabh the nails, red in colour; 4. Lacerated wound skin deep wheat grain size over the palmer aspect of right hand towards the distal part of metacerpal bone in between 2nd and 3rd metacarp arm red-in colour; 6. Two lathi marks over the back (a) 4 inch x 2 cm red in colour over the medial part of left scapula and (b) 3 inc x 2 cm lathi mark red in colour at the leval of T 10. T 11 on the left side complained of pain and tenderness over left wrist joint; That he referred the patient to Dr. K.K. Sharma Surgeon Specialist who further referred the patient to Orthdpaediac Surgeon Rajouri. After the return of Patient Dr.. K.K. Sharrna opined that there was no bony injury on the patient. T 11 on the left side complained of pain and tenderness over left wrist joint; That he referred the patient to Dr. K.K. Sharma Surgeon Specialist who further referred the patient to Orthdpaediac Surgeon Rajouri. After the return of Patient Dr.. K.K. Sharrna opined that there was no bony injury on the patient. That in his opinions injuries No. 1 to 6 were simple in nature caused by blunt object within one days and injury No.7 was also soft tissue injury. That the certificate attached with the file was issued by him under his hand and it was marked as EXPW-M / l. PW6 Dr. K.K. Sharma: has deposed that he examined one Sat Paul on 3rd July, 2002 as was referred to him by Dr. Khem Raj Sharma for Surgica consultations with regard to injury No.7 as over by Dr, Khem Raj. That he further referred the patient to Distt. Hospital Rajouri for Radiological opinion. That after consulting the radiologist, police produced X-ray films before him and on the basis of the opinion of radiologist he opined that injury No.7 on Sat Paul was simple and soft tissue. That his opinion to that extent was written on BXPW-M/l by him under his own hand on 29th July, 2002. That injured Sunita Devi was also referred by him to, Distt. Hospitcl Rajouri with regard to injury No. 2 observed on her by Dr. K.K. Sharma. That the radiologist was reported to be on leave and on the return of the patient was directly produced before Dr. KK. Sharma. PW Isher Singh ASI the l/O has deposed that he conducted the investigation of the accused. That during investigation, he went on spot and prepared the sketch of the place of occurrence and he identified the same to be attached with, the file, it was marked as EXPW-IS. That he recorded the statements and seized three sticks i.e., weapons of offence produced by accused vide Seizure Memo attached with the file. It was marked as EXPW-IS/l. That he obtained the report of both the injured Sat Paul and Sunita Devi.” 12. I have considered the evidence recorded by the trial Court during the trial and it would be clear from the evidence so recorded that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and different versions have surfaced in the statement of such prosecution witnesses. I have considered the evidence recorded by the trial Court during the trial and it would be clear from the evidence so recorded that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and different versions have surfaced in the statement of such prosecution witnesses. The occurrence as alleged is said to have taken place in the compound of the house of the complainant Sunita Devi through which there exists a public pathway. There is no specific evidence produced to show that the house of the complainant is enclosed by a compound wall. 13. The PW Isher Singh, who is the Investigating Officer has said that a Kacha Path exists on the front side of the compound of the house of the complainant and PW Babu Ram has said that a pathway passes through the compound of the PW Sat Paul and the occurrence took place at the place wherefrom they used to pass. PW Girdhari Lal has said that he used to pass through the house of the complainant everyday and PW Sunita Devi, in her statement before the learned Magistrate had stated that when she enquired from the accused Rajesh, as to why he had removed the Mangoes from their trees, while he (accused) was crossing through the house. Therefore, it has been rightly held that the place of occurrence cannot be ruled out to be a path passing through the compound of the house of the complainant Sunita Devi. 14. Section 442 of RPC inter alia provides that criminal trespass becomes house-trespass when it is committed in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or as a place of worship or as a place for custody of property. 15. Section 451 of RPC is invoked against the accused, as it is alleged that the accused–respondents armed with sticks trespassed into the compound of the complainant-Sunita Devi and caused injuries to her and her husband. Section 451 of RPC, being relevant, is reproduced as under: “451. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.—Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years.” 16. The complainant PW-1 Sunita Devi, has inter alia deposed that injuries on her back and nose were inflicted with sticks by the accused Rajesh and accused-Kamlesh thrown her down and beat her with sticks by sitting on her breast and that accused-Pitam Singh inflicted injuries on her back, arm and legs. She in her statement had, thus, said that the injuries were inflicted to her on different parts of the body like back, arm and legs but as per the medical certificate as well as the statement of PW Dr. Khem Raj Sharma, there was no injury either found on the arms or back of the complainant Sunita Devi and PW Sat Pal, who is the husband of the complainant, alleged that he received three injuries on his head with sticks and was also beaten with sticks on legs and arms which were caused by accused-respondents but the injuries, as alleged by them, is not supported by any medical evidence. 17. The appellate Court, while dealing with the evidence so produced and after appreciating the same had observed that the evidence produced is not sufficient to prove the charge and there is a doubt as to the cause of injuries to PW Sunita Devi and her husband Sat Paul in the alleged occurrence as per their statements are not supported by the statement of the doctors, as the injuries deposed by PW Sat Paul are quite different to the injuries as stated by the Dr. Khem Raj Sharma. 18. The offences for which the accused was tried by the trial Court were offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 451 and 34 of RPC, however, the trial Court has not recorded any finding so far as the offences punishable under Section 504 of RPC are concerned. 19. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is supposed to prove the case, charge or allegation against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The witnesses in this case are relatives and no independent witness has been produced in the case which, according to the allegations, took place on a public pathway at the day time. The witnesses in this case are relatives and no independent witness has been produced in the case which, according to the allegations, took place on a public pathway at the day time. It is not necessary that in every case the independent witness is required to be associated but when the witnesses who are related do not inspire confidence, in that event, it becomes necessary that the independent witnesses are produced and examined. 20. A perusal of the record as well as impugned judgment dated 01.11.2008, tends to show that there are glaring contradictions between the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as the complainant-Sunita Devi in her cross-examination has stated that she was not aware up to 03.07.2002 as to the fact who had stolen their mangoes and on the other hand, the PW Sat Pal husband of the complainant-Sunita Devi stated that on 30.06.2002 accused-Rajesh Kumar removed manages from their tree and when he enquired, accused-respondents raised a quarrel with him. Therefore, the version of these two witnesses is quite contradictory to the prosecution case. 21. PW Babu Ram, brother-in-law of PW Sat Pal has stated the in his presence accused-Kamlesh Kour made a stick blow on the head of complainant-Sunita Devi and her clothes became blood stained, however, the complainant-Sunita Devi in her statement has simply stated that accused-Kamlelsh Kour had thrown her on the ground and sat on her chest. 22. PW Girdhari Lal real brother of the PW Sat Pal stated that he saw the accused-Kamlesh Kour beating complainant-Sunita Devi with fist blows, however, the said statement is not in consonance with the statements made by complainant-Sunita Devi and her husband Sat Pal and also not corroborated by medical evidence. 23. There are glaring contradictions between the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the trial Court vide order dated 01.11.2008 has rightly held that prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused-respondents with the commission of the alleged offences. The trial Court while appreciating the evidence on record has set aside the order dated 31.07.2003 passed by the learned Magistrate and acquitted the accused-respondents. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of dated 01.11.2008, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, calls for no interference by this Court in this appeal. 25. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.