The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's failure to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.03.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (Circuit Court at Indora), in Sessions Case (RBT) No. 28/I/13/10, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted of the charge for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 341, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to instant appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on 01.01.2009, at about 11:00 p.m., at place Dhakka Colony, Ranjit Singh-accused (respondent herein) wrongfully restrained Shri Ram Dutt (complainant/injured) from proceeding further on his way to his house and inflicted injuries on him with intention and knowledge under such circumstances that his act(s) would have caused death of the complainant. The accused also threatened the complainant to his life to cause his death or to cause grievous hurt. The statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded, whereupon an FIR under the apt sections of IPC was registered against the accused. The complainant was medically examined and as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the complainant suffered injuries dangerous to life. During the course of the investigation, Investigating Officer took into possession blood stained banyan (vests) and shirt. During further course of the investigation, accused made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and in sequel thereto got recovered a knife, which was taken into possession and sealed in a parcel. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and rest of the codal formalities were completed by the police. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 23.02..2012 framed charges against the accused under Sections 341, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 506 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.PC was recorded, wherein he denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against him, besides pleaded to be innocent and being falsely implicated. However, the accused did not examine any witness in his defence.

5. Vide impugned judgment dated 22.03.2014, the learned trial Court, acquitted the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 341, 323 and 506 IPC, hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-State.

6. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a slip- shod and perfunctory manner and discarded the well reasoned and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He further contended that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in disbelieving the versions of the prosecution witnesses on minor discrepancies and contradictions not affecting the core of the prosecution case, as such, the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.

7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent/ accused contended that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Trial Court after proper appreciation of both facts and law. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, he submitted that the instant appeal, which sans merits, be dismissed.

8. We have heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State as well as learned counsel for the respondent and also carefully examined the entire records.

9. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an A