The testimonies of eyewitnesses and the principles of appellate review in cases of acquittal were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Manmohan, J.

1. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State has handed over a report of the SHO, Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi wherein it is stated that Fakar (respondent No.1) had received injuries on 27th October, 2019 and had subsequently succumbed to the same on 29th October, 2019. In view of the aforesaid, present proceedings qua Fakar (respondent No.1) stand abated.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the present criminal leave petition has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the judgment/order of acquittal dated 25th July, 2019 passed by Additional Session Judge – 03, North-West, Rohini, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.04/2016 arising out of FIR No. 1691/2015 registered with Police Station Mangol Puri.

3. The Trial Court in the impugned judgment while acquitting the respondents under Sections 324/307/34 IPC has held as under:-

“28. Testimonies of all the eye witnesses are not corroborating each other. Sonal also made improvement in his testimony by introducing new aspect that accused Fakar left the park for 10 minutes and came again. It is also in MLC of Sonal that he was under the influence of liquor. Further, accused Shahrukh was initially not named, later on his name and role was mentioned in the supplementary statement of Sonal recorded after the arrest of the accused Shahrukh. Further in cross examination Sonal completely absolved the accused Shahrukh of the offence alleged against him. Happy, Arif and Vipin also exculpated the accused Shahrukh.”

(emphasis supplied)

4. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the testimonies of the injured eyewitnesses, which were sufficient to convict Sharukh Khan @ Sonu (respondent No.2). She states that the victims had been consistent, trustworthy and there was no material contradiction in their testimonies.

5. Having heard the learned APP for the State and having perused the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that four out of five victims/injured eyewitnesses namely – Complainant-Sonal (PW-1), Happy (PW-3), Arif (PW-4) and Vipin (PW-5) have not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to involvement of Sharukh Khan @ Sonu (respondent No.2) in the incident of stabbing.

6. The only eyewitness who had deposed qua involvement of Sharukh Khan @ Sonu (respondent No.2) in the incident of stabbing was Mohd. Shahnawaz (PW-2), who had stated that Sharukh Khan @ Sonu (respondent No.2) had given a knife blow on the face of Happy (PW-3). However, on the contrary, the victim Happy (PW-3) had deposed that he had sustained injuries on his face as he had fallen down on stones. In fact, he had categorically denied the suggestion that Sharukh Khan @ Sonu (respondent No.2) had stabbed him. The relevant portion of the testimony of the victim Happy (PW-3) is reproduced here-in-below:-

“It is wrong to suggest that I have stated to the police in my statement that Shahrukh had given a blow of knife on my face. Confronted with statement Ex.PW3/A from point C to C1 where it is so recorded ..... xxx xxx xxx XXXXX by Sh. Ajay Mahla, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused Sharukh @ Sonu It is correct that Sonu came there to intervene and to pacify the quarrel and in the process I fell down.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the testimony of Mohd. Shahnawaz (PW-2) does not inspire confidence and is contrary to the testimonies of other injured eyewitnesses. Consequently, the same cannot be relied upon to convict Sharukh Khan @ Sonu (respondent No.2).

8. It is also settled law that any acquittal order cannot be lightly interfered with by the Appellate Court, though it has wide powers to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. The power to grant leave must be exercised with care and caution because the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal of an accused. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450 has held as und