S. No. 19 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Crl R/22/2024 UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION DOORU …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Illyas Laway, GA Vs. FAYAZ AHMAD WANI AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 12.12.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record on file. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of an order of discharge passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, after having gone through the material collected during the course of investigation, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence connecting the accused with the alleged act and, accordingly, discharged the accused. ` 3. The said order has been challenged in the present revision petition precisely on the ground that at the stage of discharge, the Court was required to consider only whether there existed sufficient material to proceed in the matter in support of the allegations and the offence for which the accused had been prosecuted is under Section 435 RPC. 4. The evidence on record indicates that the accused had allegedly been threatening the complainant. It is stated that during the intervening night of 3rd and 4th October, 2018 the paddy crop was set on fire, which the prosecution claims was witnessed. 5. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that none of the witnesses who have been examined during the course of investigation have stated that they have seen the accused setting the paddy on fire. 6. There is, therefore, no evidence on record connecting the accused with the alleged occurrence. The Trial Court, after having gone through the material recorded during the investigation under Section 161 CrPC, has held that there is not an iota of evidence implicating the accused. 7. None of the witnesses examined have stated that they actually witnessed the occurrence. The only evidence on record is that the paddy crop was found burnt in the morning, and the only allegation collected is that the accused had allegedly threatened the complainant prior to the occurrence. 8. The evidence that the accused had allegedly been threatening the complainant is not sufficient to connect him with the occurrence, nor does it prima facie establish that the accused set the paddy on fire. There is, therefore, no evidence on record to support the prosecution allegations against the accused. 9. In view of the above, the Trial Court has rightly discharged the accused and that there is no illegality in the order passed, thus, the revision petition is dismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 12.12.2025 Shabroz