ABDUL RASHID Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant application, applicants/appellants seek stay of operation of the judgment of conviction dtd. 28/12/2016 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi in File No.13/Sessions and they also seek bail.

(2.) In the application, applicants have reiterated almost all the grounds as taken in the memo of appeal. It is stated that the applicants are innocent and have been involved in a false case. The prosecution story is full of doubts and there is no evidence against the applicants for their involvement in the case. The applicants have been convicted on a false complaint and the story of the prosecution is belied on various grounds. There was no legal evidence to connect the applicants with the commission of the crime.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the impugned judgment is contrary to facts and law. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective. The evidence led is ridden with material contradictions and discrepancies. The evidence produced by the prosecution is contradictory, improbable and is not worthy of any credence. The trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction on the basis of conjectures and surmises, which is not tenable in law.