1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Maida alias Meruda Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.132/2005) Date of Order :- 16.09.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Ashok Gaur, for the petitioner. Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Manish Gupta, for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 10.04.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarhbas, Alwar whereby the learned Judge has acquitted all the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 148, 452, 336, 323, 324 read with Sections 149, 325, 307/149 & 353 IPC. Mr. Ashok Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that although other eye-witnesses have turned hostile during the course of trial, PW.5, Maida has stood his ground. Maida is one of the injured persons. In his examination-in-chief, he clearly states that he was assaulted with a farshi (axe) on his right foot by Jassu and Suleman. Moreover, the testimony of Maida has been corroborated by the testimony of Ram Niwas (PW.1). Thus, sufficient evidence is available on record to at least convict Jassu and Suleman. 2 On the other hand, Mr. Manish Gupta, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, has vehemently contended that since all the eye-witnesses had turned hostile, Maida is the sole eye-witness. However, Maida is not a witness of sterling worth : firstly, he has changed his version in the testimony from the version given by him to the police. Secondly, his testimony has not been corroborated either by Ram Niwas (PW.1), or by any other circumstantial piece of evidence. Therefore, the learned trial court was justified in disbelieving his testimony. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. It is, indeed, a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that when the case is based on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, the said eye-witness has to be a witness of sterling worth. In the present case, Maida is the sole eye- witness left. However, a bare perusal of his testimony clearly reveals that he has been contradicted on major points. According to him, Jassu and Suleman had assaulted with a farshi (axe) on his right foot. However, according to his injury report, he has not suffered any sharp edged injury on his right foot. In fact, the only injury suffered by him on his right foot is by a blunt weapon. Therefore, his testimony is, in fact, 3 contradicted by the medical evidence. Moreover, in his cross- examination, a large number of contradictions have been pointed out. Lastly, his testimony has not been corroborated by the testimony of Ram Niwas (PW.1). Ram Niwas, in his testimony, merely tells us that there was free fight between two groups of people. Out of these two groups, one party belonged to the family of Kale Khan. He neither reveals the names, nor specifically mentions the presence of Jassu and Suleman at the scene of the crime. Moreover, he does not identify Jassu and Suleman either in the identification parade, or in the court. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to convict Jassu and Suleman. Hence, the learned trial court was justified in acquitting the accused-persons. In this view of the matter, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned judgment. The revision petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-