JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Handwara, hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”, in a case titled as State of J&K through SHO Police Station, Handwara versus Mst. Jawahira Begum, in which accused was facing trial for offence punishable under Section 304 RPC. The Trial court has dismissed the challan and acquitted accused holding that charge framed against her has not been proved. The said judgment, whereby accused has been acquitted, is being challenged in this Appeal precisely on the grounds that the impugned Judgment is based on improper appreciation of evidence; that the evidence produced by the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt; that the Trial court has not given any reason, muchless a cogent reason while rejecting the evidence of the prosecution; that Judgment is based on total non-application of mind; that the direct as well as circumstantial evidences produced by the prosecution has established the guilt against the accused; that evidence produced on the record before the Trial court proves the guilt, therefore, the accused requires to be convicted and Judgment passed by the Trial court is required to be reversed. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent and I have also gone through the record and evidence produced before the Trial court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.03.2001, a written report was received by Police Station Handwara, from complainant, wherein it was alleged that accused caused death of Sarwa Begum wife of complainant by hitting her head with a brick shard which caused injury to her head and ultimately because of such injury, she died. According to the complainant, a cow of the complainant had gone to the pasture on 16.03.2001 for grazing purposes and when the cow returned back, it was found by his wife-deceased that their cow has suffered an injury and impairment of the eye and because of that, she raised abusive language against the accused who reside in their neighborhood. Accused caught hold of his wife and assaulted her head with a pacca brick shard causing injury to her. Accused caught hold of his wife and assaulted her head with a pacca brick shard causing injury to her. She was admitted in the hospital at Handwara in an injured condition, wherefrom she was referred to SKIMS, Soura, for treatment and she succumbed to injuries on 23.03.2001. 4. FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint as FIR No. 42 of 2001 for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the RPC. On conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for offence punishable under section 304 RPC. The accused-respondent denied the charge and prosecution was directed to produce the evidence to prove charge against the accused. The prosecution produced the witnesses namely, Khazir Mohamamd Malik, Abdul Rehman Mir, Abdul Rashid Mir, Abdul Gani Mir, Abdul Gani Malik, Mst. Amina Bano, Mohammad Iqbal Malik, Abdul Gafoor Malik, Ghulam Mohammad Mir, Abdul Gani Mir, Mohammad Ahsan Wani, whereas, respondent-accused produced Ghulam Mohammad Malik and Mohammad Ayoub Malik as witnesses in defence. It would be appropriate to examine the witnesses hereinafter : (1) PW-1: Khazir Mohd Malik is the husband of the deceased, whose statement was recorded on 08.11.2002 and 29.05.2003and he stated that about a year back his wife had gone Srinagar and on her return, she found eye of the calf was knocked out and she abused the perpetrator of the act on which accused came upon verandah to attack her on being restrained by him, she extended threat to kill his wife. His wife thereafter, went to vegetable garden and on her return, accused again assaulted her on head with a pacca brick causing injuries and due to the injury blood came from her nose. She also suffered vomiting in the evening, whereafter, he took her to the hospital at Handwara, wherefrom she was referred to the SKIMS, Soura. She died after couple of days thereafter in the hospital. Report was lodged by him with the police (EXPW 1/1). Dead body was taken into custody by the police vide EXPW 1/2. Cloths of the deceased were seized as well as brick which was produced by him before the police. Seizure memo was prepared vide EXPW 1/3. The receipt of the dead body was prepared vide EXPW 1/4. He identified the seized articles in the court seized by the police. Dead body was taken into custody by the police vide EXPW 1/2. Cloths of the deceased were seized as well as brick which was produced by him before the police. Seizure memo was prepared vide EXPW 1/3. The receipt of the dead body was prepared vide EXPW 1/4. He identified the seized articles in the court seized by the police. He has stated that his wife did not suffered from any disease and she died because of the injury which was caused to her by the accused. He had not seen anyone knocking out the eye of the cow. For lodging a report, an application was written by the petition writer at Handwara court, which was written after the death of his wife. She died about 5 to 8 days after the incident. Police did not come Soura Institute. After the dead body was brought, they went to the Police Station for lodging a report. The incident occurred in the compound of his house which is his proprietary land. His wife was assaulted in his presence by the accused and there is no land dispute in between them. He has stated that only three of them was present on spot at the time of occurrence and no other person saw the same. According to him fight took place in the verandah. Dupatta which was seized by the police was worn by the deceased which was blood stained. Brother of the accused Ghulam Mohd used to abuse his wife, they were separate houses but a common compound which is without fencing. No external injury was received by his wife. He denied the suggestion that deceased stumbled and received injury. He has, however stated that his wife did not lose consciousness from the injury but fell ill until taken to the hospital. She was not suffered any disease before the incident. The report was lodged after they had deliberations after the receipt of the dead body. The dead body was taken to home kept there for a night, thereafter deliberations after which they took the dead body to the Handwara Police Station. He further says that only he was present on the spot and when the accused and deceased fought one and each other on the verandah. Police arrested the brother of the accused Mohd Ashraf and him on the accusation of having committed murder of the deceased. He further says that only he was present on the spot and when the accused and deceased fought one and each other on the verandah. Police arrested the brother of the accused Mohd Ashraf and him on the accusation of having committed murder of the deceased. He returned home and by that time deceased was buried. Police came on the spot and recorded the statements of the persons of the village and on the next day of the burial brick shard was seized. Police seized blood stained cloths of the deceased consisting dupatta, Pheran, Frock and trousers which was produced by him on the next day after the burial of the deceased. The weapon of the offence was brick shard which contained blood stains which was produced before the police but he could not see the blood stained dupatta in the court. he has denied suggestions that the deceased died because of cardiac arrest. He stated that pucca brick is different from a kacha brick ad brick produced before the police was pucca but one produced in the court is some one of different type, but it is the same. The said brick does not contain blood stains and same are not visible on it. Mst. Khaji too saw the bloodstains on the brick on spot. Other people also gathered there. The brick was not sealed. He does not remember how may papers he signed but the signatures were taken on couple number of papers. The occurrence took place at the time of Asr prayer. So far as this witness is concerned about the occurrence he states that when his wife on return from Srinagar found that injury has been caused to the eye of the cow, she came on verandah and started abuses to the perpetrator on which accused came out on the verandah to attack his wife throw shoe on her. She thereafter had gone to the vegetable garden and on returned, accused assaulted her by hitting her head with a brick due which she suffered injuries and blood starting oozing out of her nose. So as per the statement of this witness, the occurrence took placed on the verandah where he only was present when the incident took place. (2) PW-2 namely Abdul Rehman Mir was examined on 17.11.2003. So as per the statement of this witness, the occurrence took placed on the verandah where he only was present when the incident took place. (2) PW-2 namely Abdul Rehman Mir was examined on 17.11.2003. He has been shown as witness of occurrence but he does not corroborate with the statement of the PW-1, husband of the deceased. What he has stated is that daughter of Khazir Mohd called him and told that something has befallen her mother and when he went there he found deceased lying unconscious and after she regain conscious, she was taken to hospital and treated there. She was referred to SKIMS, Soura from Handwara hospital. Husband of the deceased-PW-1 has specifically stated that she did not lose consciousness but fell ill. PW-2 has, further deposed that on his enquiry in Handwara hospital, he was told that Jawahira took a brick in her hand and assaulted her on the head in the room and police came on spot and took custody of her dead body and seized the cloths. What has been deposed by this witness in examination in chief, makes it clear that he has not himself witnessed the occurrence nor he has a personal knowledge as to how the injury was suffered by the deceased nor he has seen accused infuriating of such injury to her. This witness has stated that when he went on spot he found that the deceased was in unconscious state of mind and she regain conscious and was taken to the hospital, but according to her husband she did not fell unconscious. This is a material contradiction in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2. Further what is stated by the PW-1 regarding place of occurrence is that the fight took place on the verandah, whereas PW-2 stated that the occurrence took place inside the room. During the examination in chief he says that the deceased was taken hospital after she gained the consciousness. However, during cross examination he has stated that she was found unconscious and was taken Handwara hospital in unconscious state. There are material contradictions so far as this witness is concerned as that to the statement made by the husband –PW-1. (3) PW-3-Abdul Rashid Mir was examined on 18.04.2007. His statement also does not support the prosecution version. However, during cross examination he has stated that she was found unconscious and was taken Handwara hospital in unconscious state. There are material contradictions so far as this witness is concerned as that to the statement made by the husband –PW-1. (3) PW-3-Abdul Rashid Mir was examined on 18.04.2007. His statement also does not support the prosecution version. He stated that he heard about the illness of the deceased and that she was admitted in the hospital. She talked to her at the hospital. His statement does not in any way support the prosecution witness. Similarly, PW-4, Abdul Gani Mir who was examined on 18.01.2005, has also not supported the version of the prosecution and was declared hostile. He says that about three years back people have assembled at Asr time. He returned back home in evening people raised noise they were talking about the scuffle having occurred between the accused and Sarwa. No person had suffered any loss of life in that scuffle. Sarwa had already been taken to Soura hospital for treatment before he reached home. After being declared as hostile during cross examination by the prosecution, he says that he went to Handwara hospital along with Ali Mohd Malik, Ghulam Mohd Malik, Gafoor Malik and Ghulam Hassan Mir to attend Sarwa, where she was undergoing treatment and deceased told him in presence of others that she was assaulted by the accused on head. During the cross examination by the counsel for the accused he deposed that when he returned to village peopled have gathered in large number and talking about the fight between jawahira and deceased. They did not tell about who had injured whom. Jawhira does not cause any Injury to the head of Sarwa in his presence during any scuffle. When he visited the hospital he did not find any injury on the body or head of the deceased. She was fully conscious in the hospital at that time. But none of the doctors at hospital recorded her statement in his presence after she regain consciousness. (4) PW-5-Abdul Gani Malik was examined on 27.10.2005. He also does not support the prosecution version with regard to the injuries and scuffle which has taken place. He has stated that on the day of incident he was present it was third day of sacrificial Eid and was busy in pruning the willow trees. (4) PW-5-Abdul Gani Malik was examined on 27.10.2005. He also does not support the prosecution version with regard to the injuries and scuffle which has taken place. He has stated that on the day of incident he was present it was third day of sacrificial Eid and was busy in pruning the willow trees. He heard the accused and deceased one another, but he did not go to the place of the occurrence. She died after a month and 15 days after the incident. She (deceased) had taken sacrificial meat to the house of her sister at Srinagar where she contacted some disease and was admitted in the hospital. She has taken the sacrificial meet there before the incident. When she returned home, the two women had a scuffle, but he does not know the cause of such scuffle. Cause of the scuffle may be known to the husband of the deceased who is his cousin. Having regard to the statement made by this witness, same does not in any way support or corroborate the prosecution case or the evidence of the PW-1-husband of the deceased. Though sighed as an eyewitness does not support the version. In cross examination he has stated that she died as a result of some disease. He has denied any scuffle had taken place in his presence. He has not supported the prosecution version. The statement of this witness has not been challenged by the prosecution during the course of the trial. (5) PW-6-Mt. Amina Bano, has been examined on 08.03.2006. She has deposed in her examination in chief that she knows the accused. The name of her mother was Sarwa. She had expired about four years back. She had gone to the school on the date of the incident. When she returned home, she found her mother and the accused fighting one another. She stated the when she returned home the second time, she found that her mother was injured. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital. In her cross examination she deposed that police came on the spot on the second day of the incident and I also record the statement before the police personal on the third day, when my mother had already died. (6) PW-7 Mohd Iqbal Malik was examined on 08.03.2006. He stated in examination in chief that he knew nothing about the quarrel. (6) PW-7 Mohd Iqbal Malik was examined on 08.03.2006. He stated in examination in chief that he knew nothing about the quarrel. Thereafter, the witness was declared hostile and during cross examination by the PP, he deposed that he had visited the hospital wherein the deceased was treated by the doctors, but did not remember after how many days after the incident he had visited the deceased in the hospital. Police has not record his statement. (7) PW-8, Abdul Gafoor Malik was examined on 18.04.2007. He deposed that he did not know the cause of quarrel and did not enquire about it from any one neither he was present at the time of incident as he had gone to Sopore on that very day. During cross examination by PP, had confirmed that he had given statement to the police during investigation. He visited the deceased in the hospital, wherein he found that deceased was in a injured state but was conscious. (8) PW-9, Ghulam Mohd Mir was examined on 13.03.2008, He stated that he had not seen the quarrel, but heard that deceased was taken to the hospital. Thereafter, he visited the hospital and found that deceased was able to talk. However, during interaction with the deceased, she had told him that accused has injured her on the head with a brick. During cross examination he stated that police had recorded his statement. The deceased and the accused had not quarreled in his presence. He had visited the hospital several time and could not find injury on the deceased neither knows which body part of the deceased was injured. (9) PW-11, Abdul Gani Mir was examined 13.03.2008, He stated that he took the deceased to the hospital and the deceased had told him that the accused had assaulted her on the head and she felt pain. The deceased had told him that she was give blow of the stone which caused the injury. The weapon of offence was not seized in his present by the police. During his cross examination, he stated that, if police has recorded any statement that weapon of offence has been seized in his presence that is false. The quarrel has also not taken place in his presence. (10) PW-12, Mohd Ahsan Wani was examined on 25.05.2011. He stated in his examination in chief that he know the accused. During his cross examination, he stated that, if police has recorded any statement that weapon of offence has been seized in his presence that is false. The quarrel has also not taken place in his presence. (10) PW-12, Mohd Ahsan Wani was examined on 25.05.2011. He stated in his examination in chief that he know the accused. He had been Patwari of Galoora on the date of the incident. He prepared the site map of the place of occurrence on the instructions of the Tehsildar and Handwara police station and on their identification. It stands introduced vide EXPW 12/1. He handed over the site map to the police. During the cross examination, he deposed that he had maintained the register of events (Roznamcha Waqaiti), but did not recollect whether he had recorded the directions of the Tehsildar and the police in the daily register of the events or not. He further states that during the preparation of the site map, he did not see any corpse or any injured person or any blood or anything else there at that time. (11) The court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara closed the prosecution evidence by order dated 21.05.2011. the accused was examined in terms of Section 342 of the Code on 23.06.2011. The accused stated during examination under section 342 of the Code that the prosecution witnesses have spoken falsehood against her. She has stated further that she have been married at Kohru. She had visited her parental home on the date of incident. Her father had bequeathed her landed property measuring four Kanals and ten marlas. She sold the same to her maternal cousin, Abdul Majeed Khan. The complainant asked her to give him ten thousand rupees but she did not agree. True it is that the deceased was abusing the villagers and She prohibited her from doing so. Nevertheless, she did not throw any stone or brick upon the deceased. The deceased frequently suffered from illness. She went to the office of the DG at Srinagar to give a statement because her husband had contracted second marriage. She returned home in the evening and went to the matrimonial home. She heard about the incident on the next day. 5. The accused entered upon defence and produced two defence witnesses, namely, Ghulam Ahmed Malik and Mohd Ayoub Malik. She returned home in the evening and went to the matrimonial home. She heard about the incident on the next day. 5. The accused entered upon defence and produced two defence witnesses, namely, Ghulam Ahmed Malik and Mohd Ayoub Malik. The resume of the evidence produced by accused is hereby reproduced as follows : (1) DW-1, Ghulam Ahmed Malik was examined on 26.12.2012. He stated in his examination in chief that he knows the accused and the deceased. The incident is eleven-twelve years old. Deceased was resided in his neighbor hood. He states that we had good neighborly relations and helped one another in both pleasure and sorrow. Deceased frequently suffered from illness and remained admit in the hospital. Her condition worsened during the last three years of her life until she breathed her last. She had physically weakened because of illness. Accused also resides in his neighborhood. Her conduct is recommendable. She has never faced any allegation of like nature. He further stated that accused has brought him as her witness. He had not taken any wages from the accused. He had come to state the truth. Deceased remained admit at the Handwara hospital for some time before death. He went there to see her because she was her neighbor. It is not true that the accused assaulted the head of the deceased with a brick during the quarrel. The truth is that no quarrel occurred between them. The accused was implicated in the case pursuant to a conspiracy. During the cross examination by the PP, he deposed that he is a respectable person of the aforesaid village. He is an employee. He had not taken any wages from the accused. The truth is that the accused has been implicated in a false case. Deceased remained admit at the Handwara hospital for five-six days. He went to the Handwara hospital to see the deceased. He did not find police there. The deceased was first brought home from the hospital. Her condition worsened because of which she was taken to the Soura hospital. It is not true that the accused assaulted the deceased and injured her. (2) DW-2, Mohd Ayoub Malik, was examined on 26.12.2012. He stated in the examination in chief that knew the accused and deceased. She died about eleven years back. She was my neighbor. Her condition worsened because of which she was taken to the Soura hospital. It is not true that the accused assaulted the deceased and injured her. (2) DW-2, Mohd Ayoub Malik, was examined on 26.12.2012. He stated in the examination in chief that knew the accused and deceased. She died about eleven years back. She was my neighbor. We had good neighborly relations and helped one another in both pleasure and sorrow. The deceased frequently suffered from illness and remained admit in the hospital. Her condition worsened during the last three years of her life until she breathed her last. She was suffering from headache. She had physically weakened because of illness. Accused is my closest neighbor. Accused did not give him any wages for giving evidence. Nevertheless, he had come to depose the truth. Deceased was admitted to the Handwara hospital a few days before death. I went there to see her. She was the taken to the Soura hospital. He would have known had any quarrel occurred between the parties. It is entirely false that the accused assaulted Sarwa and killed her. The truth is that the accused is innocent and she has been implicated in the case. The parties were not involved in any land dispute. The prosecution witnesses are the relatives of the parties. They have implicated the accused pursuant to a conspiracy. During the cross examination by the PP, he stated the he is neither lambardar nor a Chowkidar. He is a common person. He is labourer by profession and earn three hundred rupees a day. Accused did not give him any wages. He did not know anything about the case against the accused. Nevertheless, a false case was fabricated against her. He stated that deceased remained admit at the Handwara hospital for eleven months. She did not recover at the hospital because of which she was brought home and then taken to the Soura hospital. It is a false that accused assaulted the deceased with a brick and injured her. He was present at home at the time of the quarrel. 6. The Trial court has appreciated the evidence and observed that the absence of medical evidence on record has robbed the prosecution of the prime foundation upon which it wanted to construct its case against accused and that deceased has met an unnatural death and the case was one of the medico-legal character. 6. The Trial court has appreciated the evidence and observed that the absence of medical evidence on record has robbed the prosecution of the prime foundation upon which it wanted to construct its case against accused and that deceased has met an unnatural death and the case was one of the medico-legal character. It has also been observed by the Trial Court that inordinate delay to lodge FIR appears to have afflicted prosecution case and absence of any explanation in this regard has rendered doubtful its essence, origin and genesis and that it was after death of deceased that a report was filed. It has also been observed by the Trial Court that there is absence of corroboration of evidence inasmuch as testimony of complainant suffers from inherent absence of credibility and that the evidence of the complainant that the deceased died as a result of injury alleged to have been received by her cannot be believed without corroboration by medical evidence and some of the prosecution witnesses have stated in their evidence that the deceased died a natural death because of illness. It was also found by the Trial Court that the medical evidence, which conducted post mortem examination of body of deceased, was not produced and examined by the prosecution which has not only deprived the Trial Court of expert opinion about the cause of death of deceased but has also deprived it of the knowledge of certain facts which the medical witness was better equipped to explain, and that non-examination of the doctor by the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge against accused and as a result of which acquitted the accused. 7. The well settled law is that the function of a court in a criminal trial is to find out whether a person arraigned before it as accused is guilty of offence with which he is charged. For this purpose, the court scans the material on record to find out whether there is any credible, reliable and trustworthy evidence on the basis whereof it is possible to convict the accused and to hold that he is guilty of offence with which he is charged. The burden to prove ingredients of offence is always on prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. 8. The burden to prove ingredients of offence is always on prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. 8. The judicial precedence reported in the case of Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (1) SCC 10 , assumes significance on that count. There it has been held as follows: - “This court has consistently held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in acquitting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphases on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record acquittal. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence...” 9. The law settled in the aforesaid judgement is that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness, provided he is wholly reliable and there is no legal impediment in acquitting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness, but if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. It is not a number or quantity, but the quality that is material and time-honoured principle is that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. So, the test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. Thus, it is open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record the acquittal and conversely it may acquit accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about quality of evidence. 10. Thus, it is open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record the acquittal and conversely it may acquit accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about quality of evidence. 10. Applying the ratio of the law laid down, as aforesaid, to the facts of the instant case, the statements of witnesses discussed above are not sufficient to convict the accused/respondent. There is infirmity in their statements that render them weak, fragile, incoherent or improbable. 11. The argument of the counsel for accused that there are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses is an argument when tested on the touchstone of the instant case shows that the prosecution has failed in discharging its burden to prove that the accused has committed the crime imputed to her. There is no merit in this appeal. It entails dismissal and as a consequence of which the same is dismissed and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is maintained and upheld. 12. The record of the trial court be sent down along with a copy of this judgment.