A local court here Saturday sentenced four persons to two years imprisonment for causing grievous hurt to a man from Rajbagh here, in 2013.
The Court of Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, Abdul Bari,announced the judgment after hearing prosecuting officer Syed Nadeem Hussainand defence counsel Muhammad Abdullah Pandith.
As per case details, Mehraj Din Wani of Rajbagh was attackedby five persons on 12 July 2013. Wani was injured in the attack. The case wasregistered by Police Station Rajbagh and charge sheet was filed before thecourt in 2014.
During the trial of the case, one of the accused personsamong five expired.
Referring to prosecution witness and evidences the courtfound all the four accused guilty for the commission of offences leading torioting and causing grievous hurt to the victim.
“The court agreeswith contentions of the prosecution that reading the statements of thewitnesses as a whole, the offences under aforementioned sections areestablished beyond any doubt,” the court said.
It added the age of the accused and the long years they havebeen facing trial “prompted court to take a lenient view.”
“Accordingly I convict the accused persons for thecommission of offence under section 147 RPC (rioting) as such the accused aresentenced with simple imprisonment for one year.”
Similarly, the court sentenced the accused persons for asimple imprisonment of one month for the commission of wrongful restraintoffence.
For the commission of offence of grievous hurt, the courtsentenced accused persons with simple imprisonment for two years. Each of theconvicts was also fined Rs 3000.
“In case of default of payment of fine, the accused shallundergo further imprisonment of one month. It is further ordered that thesentences so imposed shall run concurrently,” the court said.
Appreciating the prosecution evidence in support of case,the court referred to Supreme Court directions and said: “The prime duty of thecourt is to ensure that evidence is legally admissible. The test is whether theevidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy.”
The court observed that it is not the number of witnessesbut quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirementunder law of evidence that a particular number of witnesses were to be examinedto prove or disprove a fact.
“Conviction can be based on the testimony of soleeyewitness,” the court observed.