An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and the appellate court must show compelling reasons to overturn such a judgment, especially when the trial court's findings are plausible.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.02.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur (learned Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the respondents No. 1 to 5 (accused before learned Trial Court) was allowed and they were acquitted of the charged offences. (For convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). It was asserted that the victim/informant-Jeewana Devi (PW1) went to the police station on 09.04.2008 and stated that she was erecting a fence near her house. Sarwani Devi, her daughters-in-law and her sons gave beatings to the victim, but she (the victim) did not know the names of Sarwani’s sons and daughters-in-law. One son of Sarwani Devi had a stick with him, and he caused injuries on the right hand and arm of the victim with the stick. The victim also sustained injuries on other parts of her body. She shouted for help. Hemraj (PW10) reached the spot and rescued the victim from the accused. The accused threatened to cut the victim into various pieces. The police recorded an entry (Ext. PW9/A). An application was filed to conduct the medical examination of the victim. Dr. Mohan Thakur (PW6) conducted the medical examination and found a restriction of movement in the little finger of the left hand. He advised X-rays. A fracture was detected after the X-ray and the nature of the injury was stated to be grievous, which could have been caused within 1 to 6 hours before the examination. He issued the MLC (Ext. PW6/A). FIR (Ext. PW11/A) was registered in the police station. HC Rajesh Kumar (PW11) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext. PW11/B). The victim produced a stick (Ext.P1) which was seized vide memo (Ext. PW1/A). HC Rajesh Kumar recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. The challan was filed before the Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325, 504 and 506 of IPC. Subsequently, an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.05.2009. The charges were framed against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325, 504 and 506, read with Section 149 of IPC.

4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish its case. Jeewana Devi (PW1) is the victim. Hemraj (PW2 and PW10) is the eye-witness. Shanti Devi (PW3) is the Ward Panch, who saw that the victim had sustained injuries and also witnessed the production of the stick. Sanjay Kumar (PW4) is the victim’s husband to whom the incident was narrated. Prithvi Singh (PW5) is Pradhan, who was told about the quarrel, and he sent Ward Panch to verify the incident. Dr. Mohan Thakur (PW6) conducted the medical examination of the victim. Jeewan Kumar (PW7) took the X-ray. Sunil Kumar (PW8) is the witness to the recovery of the stick. Constable Dhaneshwar (PW9) proved the entry in the daily diary. HC Rajesh Kumar (PW11) conducted the investigation.

5. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case in its entirety. They stated that a false case was made against them. Their plants were uprooted and the informant/victim quarrelled with them. The witnesses were related to the victim. However, no defence was sought to be adduced by the accused.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the statement of the victim was duly corroborated by the medical evidence and by the statement of Hemraj. The plea of the defence regarding the improvement of the prosecution case was not acceptable as the victim ha