The court emphasizes the stringent burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases of acquittal, reinforcing the principle of presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 378(1)(b) and 378(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Appeal for leave to appeal against acquittal - Accused acquitted due to prosecution's failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt - Witnesses turning hostile, and forensic evidence inconclusive - Court stated: "the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt." (Paras 1-12)

(B) Acquittal - Court must maintain the principles of presumption of innocence, requiring strong grounds for overturning acquittal - Judicial caution in accepting verdict on circumstantial evidence. (Paras 4-11)

Facts of the case:
The state sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused charged with murder under IPC and firearm violations after the trial court found insufficient evidence. The material witnesses had turned hostile, and forensic links were not established.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding no basis for interference, affirming that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof.

Issues: The key issues included the credibility of witness testimony and the adequacy of circumstantial evidence leading to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that grant of leave to appeal must be cautiously considered, particularly in cases of acquittal, underscoring the sanctity of acquittal decisions.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. state's appeal against acquittal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. witnesses turned hostile; evidence highlights weaknesses. (Para 3)
3. legal framework for appeals against acquittal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. circumstantial evidence standards emphasized. (Para 7)
5. certainty of guilt required for conviction. (Para 8 , 9)
6. assessment of trial court's reasoning on acquittal. (Para 10 , 11)
7. leave to appeal denied; petition dismissed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. The present petition under section 378(1)(b) read with section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) seeking grant of leave to appeal against judgment dated 31.01.2020 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No. 03/2017 arising from case F.I.R. No. 625/2016 registered under section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (`IPC') and sections 25 and 27 of the ARMS ACT , 1959 (` ARMS ACT ') at P.S.: Khajuri Khas, Delhi. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the accused/respondent of all charges, being of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Mr. Ashish Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State has taken us through the impugned judgment as also through the evidence, both oral and documentary, that has come on record during the course of the trial. The essential case of the prosecution against the accused respondent was that on 24.08.2016 the accused shot at one Firoz in a factory; and the latter subsequently died.

3. We have carefully examined the evidence on record and we find that :

i. The principal ocular witnesses in the case were : PW-9 Arshad Ali alias Lakki; PW-10 Sonu Verma; PW-16 Amit Kumar and PW-17 Abid Ali. A perusal of the testimony of the said ocular witnesses shows that all of them turned hostile on all critical and material aspects of the allegations against the respondent;

ii. Also, the medical evidence brought on record by PW-1 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, was to the effect that death was a consequence of haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to chest produced by projectile from a firearm, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. The firearm, which was stated to be a country-made pistol, was alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused. However, the ballistics expert, PW-21 Ms. Babita Gulia, said in her report, that no opinion could be formed to link the cartridge recovered from the crime-scene with the country-made pistol, alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the respondent;

iii. Furthermore, it also transpires that while cross-examining the post-mortem doctor, the prosecution did not put the country- made pistol to him; and the investigating officer also did not seek any subsequent opinion from the doctor, as to whether the country-made pistol allegedly recovered could have been the weapon of offence.

4. Now before proceeding further, we must remind ourselves of the position of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as to grant of leave to appeal against a judgment of acquittal under sections 378 and 386 Cr.P.C. To begin with, it would be in context to extract the relevant portions of the said two provisions, for ease of reference. Section 378 (1)(b) reads as under :

"378. Appeal in case of acquittal. - (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),-

* * * * *

(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.

* * *