STATE Vs. ASLAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 172/2014 is directed against the judgment dated 03.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, in File No. 10/Session, titled as, State v. Mohd. Aslam & others, whereby the learned trial Court, while dismissing the case of prosecution for want of material evidence, acquitted the accused of the offences under Section 302/376/366/109 RPC in case FIR No. 86/2010, registered at Police Station Billawar. A perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the record of trial Court reveals that the prosecution had examined as many as 33 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. On a close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it reveals that the prosecution had stressed more on quantity of evidence, rather than quality of evidence, as a result of which the prosecution had failed to establish the circumstances which could connect the accused with the crime. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important. In the present case most of the prosecution witnesses have either turned hostile or failed to support the case of prosecution. Also, there was no direct evidence available; rather there were material differences between the statements of prosecution witnesses. PW Shamim Begum though had deposed that she had seen an unknown lady with accused Nos. 1 and 3, but when she had seen them is not forthcoming from her statement nor could she say with certainty whether the unknown lady was in fact the deceased. Her statement too could not be corroborated by any of the witnesses. Therefore, we cannot rely on her statement alone, because, in evidence, one witness alone cannot corroborate an essential fact, it must be corroborated by a second independent source. Further, in criminal cases what is to be seen is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible, trustworthy or otherwise, which in our opinion the prosecution has totally failed to prove. Therefore, the trial Court in these circumstances had no option but to acquit the accused for want of adequacy/quality of evidence, which is necessary to decide a case in its right perspective.

(2.) We too do not find any good reason to take a view other than the one taken by the learned trial Court, as we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment as the trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused on the basis of the evidence available on record. Therefore, we decline to grant leave to the State as sought for. Resultantly, SLAA No. 182/2014 merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly.

(3.) Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 172/2014 also meets the same fate. Send down the record of trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.