[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ravi Kumar vs State Of J&K on 9 February, 2026
Sr. No. 20
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No.:CRA No.45/2009
IA No. 62/2009
Reserved on:- 06.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 09.02.2026
Uploaded on:- 09.02.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is pronounced Full
Ravi Kumar ....Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate.
V/s
State of J&K.
.....Respondent(s)
Through:- None.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated
01.08.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur
(hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), whereby the appellant
has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307 and
341 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with fine of
₹10,000/- for offence under Section 307 RPC and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months,
and further sentenced to pay fine of ₹500/- for offence under
Section 341 RPC with default stipulation. Out of the fine amount, if
realized, ₹8,000/- has been directed to be paid to the injured
Bishambar Dass (PW-3) as compensation.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.02.2004, Lalita Devi
(PW-1), wife of the injured Bishambar Dass, submitted an
application before Police Station, Udhampur alleging that while her
husband was proceeding towards Reasi for duty, the appellant Ravi
Kumar along with co-accused attacked him with a „Toka‟ and
inflicted injuries upon him. It was further alleged that an amount of
₹10,000/- was taken from his pocket. On the basis of the said
application, FIR No. 54/2004 came to be registered for offences
under Sections 307, 341, 34 RPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented and
charges were framed on 12.08.2004.
3. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case,
whereas the defence examined one witness. Upon appreciation of
the evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections
307 and 341 RPC while acquitting him of the charge under the
Arms Act, whereas the other two accused stood acquitted by giving
them benefit of doubt. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has
been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the conviction
is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the injured himself has not
supported the prosecution case; that most of the independent
witnesses have turned hostile; that the alleged recovery of weapon
has not been proved in accordance with law; and that material
contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 render the prosecution case
doubtful. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish
the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that the
learned trial Court has mis-appreciated the evidence on record.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that
the injuries sustained by the victim stand duly proved by medical
evidence; that PW-1 is an eye-witness whose testimony inspires
confidence; and that minor discrepancies ought not to result in
acquittal. It is further contended that testimony of hostile witnesses
is not to be discarded in toto and can be relied upon to the extent it
supports the prosecution.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,
this Court proceeds to examine whether the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
7. The most material witness in the present case is PW-3 Bishambar
Dass, the injured. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that while
walking on the road he was pushed from behind, fell down and
sustained stab injuries causing bleeding. Significantly, he
categorically deposed that he does not know who attacked him.
Although he admitted that the accused are his neighbours, he did
not attribute any overt act to them. Even after being declared hostile
and cross-examined by the prosecution, nothing incriminating could
be elicited from him connecting the appellant with the assault.
8. It is settled law that testimony of an injured witness ordinarily
carries great evidentiary value, as such a witness is presumed to be
truthful because he has sustained injuries in the same occurrence.
In "Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the evidence of an injured witness
stands on a higher pedestal. However, where the injured himself
fails to identify the assailant, the very foundation of the prosecution
case becomes shaky. In "Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8
SCC 191, it was held that when the injured witness does not support
the prosecution, conviction cannot be sustained unless there is
strong and reliable corroborative evidence. In the present case, such
corroboration is conspicuously absent.
9. The prosecution heavily relies upon PW-1 Lalita Devi, the wife of
the injured, who claims to be an eye-witness. She deposed that the
appellant inflicted multiple blows with a Toka while the co-accused
restrained her husband. However, her testimony in cross-
examination reveals significant contradictions. She admitted that
the allegation regarding theft of ₹10,000/- was mentioned in the
report due to anxiety and that no such money was actually taken.
This admission strikes at the credibility of the FIR, which is
expected to contain truthful narration of facts. She further admitted
discrepancies between her deposition in Court and her statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly with regard to the
role attributed to the accused, details of injuries and she deposing
on hearsay.
10. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752, the Supreme
Court held that minor discrepancies are bound to occur; however,
contradictions which go to the root of the prosecution case cannot
be ignored. The improvement and inconsistency in the present case
relate not to trivial details but to the core allegation, thereby
creating serious doubt.
11. Further, PW-2 Sunil Kumar, PW-5 Mohan Lal, PW-6 Krishnu,
PW-7 Ambo and PW-8 Krishan Chand were declared hostile.
Though it is a settled proposition that evidence of a hostile witness
is not to be discarded in toto and can be relied upon to the extent it
supports the prosecution "(State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra,
(1996) 10 SCC 360)", in the present case none of these witnesses
have supported the prosecution version regarding the identity of the
assailant or the alleged recovery.
12. The alleged recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure statement
also remains unproved. The witnesses to the disclosure and
recovery memos denied their signatures and knowledge of
proceedings. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only that
portion of the statement which distinctly relates to the fact
discovered is admissible, as laid down in "Phulkari Kottayam v.
Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67". In absence of reliable attesting
witnesses, the recovery loses evidentiary value.
13. The medical evidence tendered by PW-9 Dr. Rajinder Sharma
establishes that the injured sustained injuries caused by a sharp-
edged weapon. However, medical evidence is corroborative in
nature and cannot establish the identity of the assailant. In
"Thaman Kumar v. UT of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380", it was
held that medical evidence can only lend assurance to ocular
testimony but cannot substitute it. In the present case, while the
injuries are proved, the person responsible for inflicting them has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
14. In order to sustain conviction under Section 307 RPC, the
prosecution must establish that the accused had the intention or
knowledge to cause death and committed an overt act towards its
commission. In "Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843,
it was held that the mere fact that injury is grievous does not by
itself bring the case within Section 307 unless intention to cause
death is established. In the absence of reliable evidence identifying
the appellant as the assailant, the question of attributing intention
does not arise.
15. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the
prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In "Kali
Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808", the
Supreme Court observed that if two views are possible, the one
favourable to the accused must be adopted. The presumption of
innocence continues throughout the trial and even at the appellate
stage.
16. On cumulative appreciation of evidence, this Court finds that the
prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it
was the appellant who assaulted PW-3. The injured has not
identified him; independent witnesses have not supported the
prosecution; recovery of weapon is doubtful; and material
contradictions exist in the testimony of the sole eye-witness PW-1.
17. The learned trial Court appears to have placed undue reliance upon
the testimony of PW-1 without adequately considering the effect of
material contradictions and the hostile stance of the injured witness.
The trial court on her evidence has acquitted co -accused but on
same set of evidence has convicted the appellant so the findings
recorded by the trial Court, therefore, suffer from misappreciation
of evidence.
18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that
the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
19. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated
01.08.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, is
set aside. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under
Sections 307 and 341 RPC are hereby quashed. The appellant is
acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged.
20. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this
judgment
(SANJAY PARIHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
09.02.2026
Ram Krishan
