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 Hussain and defence counsel Muhammad Abdullah Pandith.
As per case details, Mehraj Din Wani of Rajbagh was attacked by five persons on 12 July 2013. Wani was injured in the attack. The case was registered by Police Station Rajbagh and charge sheet was filed before the court in 2014.
During the trial of the case, one of the accused persons among five expired.
Referring to prosecution witness and evidences the court found all the four accused guilty for the commission of offences leading to rioting and causing grievous hurt to the victim.
“The court agrees with contentions of the prosecution that reading the statements of the witnesses as a whole, the offences under aforementioned sections are established beyond any doubt,” the court said.
It added the age of the accused and the long years they have been facing trial “prompted court to take a lenient view.”
“Accordingly I convict the accused persons for the commission of offence under section 147 RPC (rioting) as such the accused are sentenced with simple imprisonment for one year.”
Similarly, the court sentenced the accused persons for a simple imprisonment of one month for the commission of wrongful restraint offence.
For the commission of offence of grievous hurt, the court sentenced accused persons with simple imprisonment for two years. Each of the convicts was also fined Rs 3000.
“In case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment of one month. It is further ordered that the sentences 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 the court is to ensure that evidence is legally admissible. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy.”
The court observed that it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement under law of evidence that a particular number of witnesses were to be examined to prove or disprove a fact.
“Conviction can be based on the testimony of sole eyewitness,” the court observed.