JUDGMENT : 1. This judgment of acquittal by the State of Jammu & Kashmir (now Union Territory of J&K) is directed against a judgment dated 24.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [“the trial Court”] in file No.71/Addl. Sessions titled State of J&K v. Madan Singh and others, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the commission of offences punishable under Section 315/313/109/498-A RPC. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it would be necessary to notice, briefly, the prosecution story as was put up before the trial Court. 3. It is claimed that on September 15, 2000, the then ASI Pritam Chand of Police Station, Akhnoor, who was on routine patrol duty along with other police personnel at Akhnoor, received an information that the complainant was being subjected to miscarriage against her will at the clinic of respondent No.4. He rushed to the clinic and enquired from the complainant. She disclosed that she was married to accused-Madan Singh, respondent No.1 herein for the last one year and had conceived a baby out of her wedlock with accused No.1. She claimed that she was carrying a fetus of 4/5 months, which she was forced to abort by accused No.1 at the abetment of respondent Nos.2 and 3. She also made allegation of demand of dowry by respondent Nos.1 to 3. She also made an allegation that prior to 15.09.2000 i.e. on an earlier occasion on 4th September, 2000 as well she was subjected to beating by her husband-accused No.1. The statement of the complainant was recorded and she along with a dead baby delivered by her was brought to Government Hospital, Akhnoor and simultaneously a docket was dispatched by ASI Pritam Chand to Police Station, Akhnoor for registration of FIR. On this, FIR No.199/2000 was registered at Police Station, Akhnoor and investigation set in motion. The police after recording statements of witnesses, who were found acquainted with the facts of the case, and completing other legal formalities, presented a Final Report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor on 23.01.2001. The matter was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, which, on transfer, came to be assigned to the trial Court. 4. The trial Court framed the charges against respondent No.1 under Sections 315/498-A RPC, respondent Nos. The matter was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, which, on transfer, came to be assigned to the trial Court. 4. The trial Court framed the charges against respondent No.1 under Sections 315/498-A RPC, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 315/498-A/109 RPC and against respondent No.4 under Section 313/109 RPC. The charges were read over to the respondents. They all denied the charges and opted for their trial. 5. With a view to proving its case, the prosecution examined PW-Neelam Devi, PW-Asha Rani, PW-Bimla Devi, PW-Balwant Singh, PW-Kikar Singh, PW-Kashmir Singh, PW-Raj Kumar Gupta, PW-Dr.Raman Bhagat, PW-Dr. Gafoor Ahmed and PW-Pritam Chand, Investigating Officer. 6. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the respondents and their statements under Section 342 RPC were recorded. The respondents denied their involvement in the commission of offence alleged against them but opted not to lead any evidence in defence. The trial Court considered the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to connect the respondents with the commission of offences with which they were charged and, accordingly, acquitted all of them vide it judgment dated 24th May, 2011, impugned in this appeal. 7. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has erroneously drawn conclusions, which are against the weight of evidence. It is submitted that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents, who had, by subjecting the complainant to forced abortion, not only treated her with cruelty but were responsible for killing the child in womb. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution lacks consistency and is not sufficient to convict the respondents with the offences they were charged by the trial Court. 9. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses. PW-Asha Rani is ex-wife of respondent No.1 and, therefore, cannot be expected to be a witness to the happenings in the house of respondent No.1 between him and his wife, the complainant. She is obviously inimical to respondent No.1 and was, therefore, planted by the prosecution to support its case. 9. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses. PW-Asha Rani is ex-wife of respondent No.1 and, therefore, cannot be expected to be a witness to the happenings in the house of respondent No.1 between him and his wife, the complainant. She is obviously inimical to respondent No.1 and was, therefore, planted by the prosecution to support its case. PWs-Bimla Devi and Balwant Singh are the parents of the complainant and are admittedly not a witness to the fight, if any, that might have taken place between respondent No.1 and the complainant, which led to the alleged abortion of the complainant-Neelam Devi. The FIR came to be registered on the basis of the statement made by the complainant-Neelam Devi. As per the statement of Neelam Devi, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complaint was against respondent No.4 for forcing the complainant to abort the child in womb against her will and without her consent. However, when her statement was recorded in the Court, she clearly deposed that dead baby was delivered in the Nursing Home of respondent No.4 in the natural course of things and that she was not administered any medicine or treatment by respondent No.4 for effecting forced abortion. In her examination-in-chief, she owns the statement made to the police only partially but when she was subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel, she disowned her statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Police. She even went to the extent of stating that she was unconscious and, therefore, did not remember what was recorded by the police. In her cross-examination, she also claims that though she was not regularly taking the medical consultation during her pregnancy but all her expenses, particularly in relation to pregnancy were being met by her husband, respondent No.1. She has virtually disowned her statement made to the police and tried to project a new version of the incident, which, of course, is not supported by other witnesses. PW-Asha Rani is ex-wife of respondent No.1 and, therefore, has a motive to implicate him. In her deposition before the Court, she states that since respondent No.1 has spoiled her life and is also not providing any maintenance to her, as such, it is her wish that he gets punishment. She claims to have arrived at the clinic one and half hours after the admission/arrival of the complainant. In her deposition before the Court, she states that since respondent No.1 has spoiled her life and is also not providing any maintenance to her, as such, it is her wish that he gets punishment. She claims to have arrived at the clinic one and half hours after the admission/arrival of the complainant. The trial Court has rightly not believed this witness as well. 10. PW-Bimla Devi is mother of the complainant. She is not witness to what happened prior to the abortion of the complainant but she states that respondent No.1 had been beating her daughter. She, however, claims that her daughter was never beaten in her presence. If that be the position, Bimla Devi is only an hearsay witness and, therefore, has rightly not been believed by the trial Court. 11. PW-Balwant Singh has made allegation of demand of dowry against respondent No.1 but states that he never lodged any report about the dowry demand or physical cruelty by respondent No.1. PW-Kikkar Singh denied having any knowledge about the case and is, therefore, no witness in the eye of law. 12. PW-Kashmir Singh has deposed before the trial Court that the complainant was never beaten by respondent No.1 in his presence. He states that when he went to the Hospital, the complainant was unconscious at that time. He also states that he did not see any injury mark on the person of Neelam Devi. 13. PW-Dr. Raman Bhagat, who clinically examined the complainant, supports the certificate issued by him. However, in cross-examination, he states that the injuries found on the person of complainant were possible due to fall on a hard surface followed by rolling. Nowhere in his statement has he deposed that the delivery of dead child by the complainant was as a result of any beating or injury received by the complainant. To the same extent is the statement of PW-Dr. Gafoor Ahmed. 14. It has also come in the statement of ASI Pritam Chand that when he reached the clinic of respondent No.4, the complainant was in a unconscious condition and she regained her consciousness in the Government Hospital, Akhnoor. He claims to have taken medical opinion with regard to fitness of the complainant to make statement before recording her statement. 14. It has also come in the statement of ASI Pritam Chand that when he reached the clinic of respondent No.4, the complainant was in a unconscious condition and she regained her consciousness in the Government Hospital, Akhnoor. He claims to have taken medical opinion with regard to fitness of the complainant to make statement before recording her statement. He, however, has neither disclosed the name of the doctor, who declared the complainant fit to make statement nor any such doctor has been examined in the court. Dr. Gafoor Ahmed and Dr. Raman Bhagat had not stated anything about issuance of such certificate in their deposition. 15. The trial Court has carefully examined the statement of each witness and having regard to the ingredients constituting the offences allegedly committed by the respondents has arrived at a correct conclusion that it was not safe to convict the respondents on the basis of such material and evidence on record. 16. For all these reasons, I find no merit in this appeal. Otherwise also, it is well settled that the accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and this presumption gets fortified when the accused is acquitted by the trial Court. That apart, even if this Court, on evaluation of evidence on record, is of the opinion that a view other than the view taken by the trial Court is also permissible, being Appellate Court hearing acquittal appeal, it would lean in favour of the view that supports the accused. 17. Viewed from any angle, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is sound and well reasoned and, therefore, does not call for any interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.