Bansi Lal Bhat, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against acquittal of respondent -Khurshid Ahmed of offences under Sections 302/341 of RPC recorded by learned Principal Sessions Judge Bhaderwah in Sessions File No. 12/Sessions decided on 12.03.2012. The impugned judgment of acquittal is assailed on the ground that same has been passed without appreciating the direct and circumstantial evidence brought on record by prosecution during trial. The impugned judgment is termed as being perverse resulting in miscarriage of justice, therefore, warranting interference by this Court in appeal.
(2.)FACTS germane to putting respondent on trial on charge of murder of deceased Arshad Sajjad are required to be noticed. It was on 18.05.2006 that Arshad Sajjad, in an injured condition, accompanied by his father laid information at Police Station Bhaderwah alleging that while returning from his shop at Passari Adda at 8 pm the respondent (herein after referred to as "accused") accosted him on the way near Masjid and assaulted him with a rod on his head causing injuries. Case under FIR No. 53/2006 came to be registered under Section 341/323 of RPC. The injured was referred to hospital. As the condition of injured became serious, offence under Section 307 of RPC was added. The injured was shifted to Government Medical College Jammu as his condition deteriorated. However, he succumbed to injuries while under treatment in GMC Hospital Jammu. The offence under Section 307 of RPC was altered in offence under Section 302 of RPC. During the course of investigation dead body of deceased Arshad Sajjad was subjected to post mortem examination. Clothes worn by the deceased along with his dead body came to be seized. Blood stained soil was seized and site plan of occurrence was drawn up. Accused was arrested and a rod was recovered at his instance. Site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence was drawn up. Opinion was obtained from the Medical Expert regarding the weapon of offence. The seized articles were produced before the Magistrate who resealed the same and forwarded the same to FSL Jammu for chemical examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The investigation reveals that there was some dispute relating to transaction of money between the deceased and the accused. One Gias -ud -din had purchased GI -Sheets from the shop of one Arshad Hussain Beig and accused had undertaken to pay for the same but there was delay in making the payment. It further revealed that on the date of alleged occurrence the accused had visited the shop of deceased at Passari Adda and the deceased had put up the demand of money from the accused which the latter resented and threatened the deceased. At 8 pm, the deceased was proceedings towards his home after closing his shop. His father Sajjad Ahmed Beig was accompanying him. The deceased was accosted by the accused on reaching near Passri Masjid and the accused assaulted him with an iron rod hitting him on his head in consequence whereof the deceased suffered injuries which ultimately proved fatal. The investigation was concluded and it culminated in filing of charge sheet against the accused for offence under Sections 302/341 of RPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty to charges framed under Sections 302/341 of RPC against him. Prosecution, accordingly, made a bid to bring home guilt of the accused by adducing evidence at the trial. Reference to evidence shall be made for reappraisal thereof while dealing with the modes of proof relied upon by prosecution.

(3.)LEARNED counsel for appellant -State submits that the trial court has overlooked and improperly rejected the testimony of Pw -Sajjad Ahmed Bhat who happened to be the father of deceased and had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. It is further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the sole eye -witness which in itself was sufficient to prove the guilt of accused. Besides, it is argued, the circumstances corroborated by Medical Report of sufficient proof of involvement of accused. It is submitted that the direct and the circumstantial evidence corroborated by the Expert evidence establishes the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of doubt.