Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 8: Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Doda, Amarjeet Singh Langeh today dismissed the challan and acquitted the accused in case F.I.R No. 160/2012 for offences under Sections 435/34 of RPC in case titled ” State through SHO Police Station Bhaderwah V/S Puran Kumar and Another” wherein allegations against accused were that they committed mischief with common intention by entering upon the land of complainant and putting on fire the dry maize grass of complainant valuing Rs 20,000.
While evaluating the evidence of complainant, Court noted, “Complainant in the case has also been cited as an eye witness to the occurrence. Interestingly, this witness is very categoric in asserting during cross examination that he did not see accused putting the grass on fire with his own eyes.
According to him, only Sunil Kumar who alone saw the occurrence. Once the complainant did not see the occurrence with his own eyes, his testimony and narrative projected by him in his testimony is thus of no avail to prosecution case”.
“Further, this testimony of complainant also conflicts with his fundamental assertion in original complaint where he claimed that accused were identified by him while putting the grass on fire in the firelight. These two versions of complainant therefore are incompatible and his testimony therefore cannot form the basis for sustaining conviction of accused being wholly on reliable”, the Judge observed.
With regard to another eye witness in the case, Court observed “This witness claims to have witnessed the occurrence. He also admitted that his family has a long standing dispute with accused. He also affirmed that he has good relations with complainant. The core of testimony of this witness is too vague and does not provide detailed description as to how he actually observed accused setting heap of dry maize grass on fire at 8 O Clock in the night”.
“On facts therefore, this witness seems to have played a Teflon character possibly to settle scores with accused against inimical background by thoughtfully aligning with complainant. The entire testimony of this witness, if viewed in aforesaid context is thus tainted and therefore proves nothing”, the court ruled.
With these observations, Court held that prosecution failed to bring home charges against the accused by leading cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence and acquitted the accused.
Follow our WhatsApp channel