The presumption of innocence of an accused is reinforced by the order of acquittal, and compelling reasons are required to interfere with the order of acquittal.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. By this petition under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') filed against the judgment of the Trial Court dated 22.09.2018 passed by Learned ASJ, Dwarka Court, in case FIR No. 48/2017, at Police Station Sagar Pur by which the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

2. The factual matrix from which the present proceeding arises are being adumbrated as follows:

“Adumbrated in brief the case of prosecution is that on 26.03.2017 at about 12 noon at House no.6, Gulia Enclave, behind Anaj Mandi, Najafgarh, Delhi, the accused inflicted injuries by knife upon person of Ranjit Yadav. Accused was arrested on 26.03.2017, produced in court on 27.03.2017 and remanded to judicial custody and since then he is in judicial custody.”

3. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The accused was charged with offence under Section 307 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as of 08 witnesses including an eye witness PW-4, Asha (wife of the accused).

4. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in the present case and stated that PW-3, Ranjit Yadav (victim), had illicit relationship with PW-4, Asha (wife of accused). The accused chose not to examine any witnesses in his defence.

5. After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the trial Court recorded the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.

6. Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned counsel for the State submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable in law as the Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and is based on non-application of judicial mind. It is submitted that the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent on the basis of fictional doubts which are against the factual matrix of the case.

7. The counsel for the State further submitted that even if there are minor variations and discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-3 (the victim) and PW-4 (wife of the accused), there is corroboration regarding the key material facts of the case. Even other official witnesses, SI Satyawan (PW-7), ASI Surender Singh (PW-6) and HC Bhagirath (PW-5) led by the prosecution, corroborate in their testimonies regarding the consequential elements of the case.

8. Learned APP also contended that the trial court has erred in discarding the injuries suffered by the victim which were proved by PW-1 (Dr. Rajeev Kumar, Senior Medical Officer, from RTRM Hospital) and also the FSL report (Ex-PF) which proved the involvement of Respondent in the commission of the crime.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the State and also perused the relevant material available on record.

10. At the outset we deem it appropriate to peruse the testimony of material witnesses i.e. PW-3 (the victim) and PW-4 (wife of the accused) and PW-2 (employer of PW-3). PW-3 (the victim) during his examination in chief deposed as under:

“About two years ago, accused Vijay present in court in JC, correctly identified, had taken Rs.10,000/- as loan from me but I do not remember the date and month when it was so taken. Vijay was residing in room taken on rent from my employer Moni. I was residing in the room of my employer Moni. Vijay called me at about 12 Noon and gave me his bank passbook in my hand asking me to see whether there is any money. I told him that I was not that literate. I started looking in the passbook. Accused Vijay assaulted me with knife at various places of my body including forehead, two places at stomach, chest, above my left eyebrow. I became unconscious. After two day