HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CrlA(AS) No. 21/2023 State of J&K …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG. q vs Mohkam Din and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. S. M. Chowdhary, Advocate with Mr. Bilal A. Chowdhary, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 14.08.2025 (Oral) 1. This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 30.11.2016, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Special Court) [“the trial Court”] in case titled “State of J&K v. Mohkam Din and Ors.” for offences under Sections 436/34 RPC, vide which, respondents came to be acquitted of the charge. 2. As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu received source information that respondent Mehraj Din had set ablaze the cowshed of one Mohd. Yousaf (complainant) with the connivance of the other respondents-accused Mohkam Din and Mohd. Ashraf, which caused damage to the cowshed and the cattles housed therein. On the receipt of this report, FIR No. 20/2010 came to be registered and investigation eventually culminated into a charge sheet against the respondents. The respondents came to be charged by the trial Court for the Sr. No.45 2 CrlA(AS) No. 21/2023 aforesaid offence on 27.12.2011 whereby, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prompting the trial Court to ask for the prosecution evidence. 3. The prosecution managed to examine only 02 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Mohd. Yousaf, the complainant and PW-2 Qasim Din. Incriminating part of their testimonies, on culmination of prosecution evidence were put to the respondents under Section 342 Cr. P. C. whereby, they denied the allegations by contending that they are falsely implicated in the case. The respondents did not lead any evidence in defence. 4. Learned trial Court having analysed the prosecution evidence has concluded that prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. 5. The appellant is aggrieved of impugned judgment primarily on the ground that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence, adduced by the prosecution in the right perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I have not been persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by learned trial Court. 7. The complainant PW-1 Mohd. Yousaf in his testimony has deposed that on 21.01.2013 at around 08:30 pm to 9:00 pm, he saw his house burning when he was about to reach there and dairy near his house was found having been set ablaze by someone. He saw his driver Liaqat Ali chasing respondents accused Mehraj Din and Mohd. Ashraf, who however, 3 CrlA(AS) No. 21/2023 succeeded to flee. PW-2 Qasim Din has testified in the same vein by stating that he went to the spot and saw that Kulla of Faqar Din had caught fire at about 09:30 pm on 02.02.2010. A couple of animals received burn injuries and the entire household was found burnt. He clarified that he had not, himself, seen any person setting ablaze the Kulla, though many people had assembled. 8. From a bare perusal of the testimony of both the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that both the witnesses are hearsay. They have not witnessed the occurrence. According to PW-1 Mohd. Yousaf, his driver Liaqat Ali had chased respondents Mehraj Din and Mohd. Ashraf. However, prosecution has not examined Liaqat Ali. Another aspect of the matter which needs attention is that complainant PW-1 Mohd. Yousaf has stated that when he came to the spot he saw his house burning and a dairy near his house was also found having been set ablaze by somebody. However, PW Qasim Din has stated that when he went to spot he saw Kulla of Faqar Din set ablaze by somebody. He has not stated that house of the complainant Mohd. Yousuf or any dairy near his house was found set ablaze. This is a material contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. 9. Be that as it may, the date of occurrence mentioned by the complainant in his complaint, on the basis of which aforesaid FIR came to be registered is 22.09.2010 and he lodged the complaint with the police station on 31.09.2010 i.e., after an inordinate delay of about eight days. In his 4 CrlA(AS) No. 21/2023 statement, under Section 164-A Cr. P. C. he deposed that occurrence took place on 22.04.2010 whereas, PW-2 Qasim Din has stated that occurrence took place on 02.02.2010. This discrepancy, regarding the date of occurrence, in the prosecution evidence and the statement of the complainant recorded during investigation under Section 164-A Cr. P. C. and the statement of PW-2 Qasim Din goes to the very root of the prosecution case. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid, it is manifest that prosecution evidence is discrepant on material aspects of the case. There is inordinate delay in the lodgement of FIR which remains unexplained. Learned trial Court has appreciated the prosecution evidence in the correct perspective which does not call for any intereference. 11. Hence, present appeal is dismissed and impugned judgment is upheld. 12. Disposed of. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge Jammu 14.08.2025 Sushant