IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence and the principle of benefit of doubt are paramount in criminal law, requiring clear evidence for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sudhir Singh, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whererby accused respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charges under Section 307 and 506 IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt.

2. Vide order dated 31.10.2023, the Lower Court records was called for. The scanned copy of the same was received on 06.03.2024.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Sandeep made statement before the police on 21.09.2012 that when on 20.09.2012 at about 11:00 AM he had gone to Sandeep (Chhilai Wala) to give some rings for putting into them some stones, then accused Sohan Lal along with one another boy was standing there and he (Sohal Lal), took out his pistol and pointed it upon the complainant and due to fear, the complainant immediately tried to run back. It was further stated that the accused fired a bullet, but fortunately it missed the target. The accused had fired upon him with the intention to kill. After the incident, when people gathered at the spot, the accused along with his associate ran away from there. The accused was having enmity with the complainant due to some land dispute and he wanted to kill the complainant in order to grab his land. Based on the aforesaid complainant, the FIR was registered under Sections 285 and 506 IPC at Police Station City Jind. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. Initially the charges under Sections 285 and 506 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act were framed against the accused, but subsequently vide order dated 16.03.2021 charges under Section 307 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 Suresh Kumar (Retd. Arms Clerk, SDM Office, Jind); PW2 ASI Narender Singh (Investigating Officer); PW 3 (Retired ESI/MM); PW 4 Hira Lal, (Investigating Officer) and PW-5 HC Shishpal, besides leading documentary evidence Ex. P-1 to P-10. Thereafter statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The entire incriminating material was put to the accused, which he denied and pleaded his false implication. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in defence. The ground considered by the learned trial Court for acquitting the respondent No.2 are as follows:-

“1. The main star witness of the prosecution was complainant-Sandeep son of Dayanand but he was not examined as he had already expired 4-5 years ago.

2. There is no other eye witness to the incident.

3. The case of the prosecution was that empty cartridge was collected by the complainant and that too on the next date of the occurrence and not by the police. As the complainant has already died, the identity of the person who had fired the bullet containing in the said cartridge could not be established.”

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has vehemently argued that though the complainant had expired during the trial of the case and his testimony could not be recorded, yet from the other attending facts and circumstances i.e. recovery of the empty cartridge and the FSL report, it was proved on record that the empty cartridge had been fired from the licenced pistol of accused-respondent No.2. It is thus, argued that the very approach of the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2 is illegal. It is further submitted that no evidence had been produced by the defence, which could contradict or controvert the evidence led by the prosecution, and, therefore the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record of the case.

8. The sole question that requires consideration by this Court is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal requires any interference by this Court.

9. Indisputably, complainant Sandeep was the only eye witness to the occurrence. He had died during the