The judgment established the principle that an appellate court must have substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the need for a plausible explanation for delay in lodging the FIR.

Headnote:
378 - Criminal Procedure - Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2018 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - State of U.P. Vs. Balram Singh and 2 others - 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, 25 Arms Act - The court discussed the challenge to the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Second Special Judge/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 128/1997 and Session Trial No. 143/1997. The judgment delved into the facts of the case, the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, and the legal principles governing appeals against acquittals. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal. The judgment highlighted the impact of delay in lodging the FIR and the importance of scrutinizing the prosecution's version. Ultimately, the court found that the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused was well-reasoned, lacking perversity or miscarriage of justice, and based on a plausible view, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Second Special Judge/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 128/1997 and Session Trial No. 143/1997. The prosecution alleged that the accused obstructed the movement of the complainants, hurled abuses, and threatened them, leading to a fatal shooting and injuries. The FIR was lodged the next day, and the accused were acquitted by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused was well-reasoned, lacking perversity or miscarriage of justice, and based on a plausible view, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' statements, the impact of the ballistic report, and the conduct of the first informant in leaving the deceased's body unattended.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the need for substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal, and the impact of delay in lodging the FIR. It also highlighted the importance of scrutinizing the prosecution's version and the need for plausible explanations for delay.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused was affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Budhwar, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal u/s 378 of code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) is made to the judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 passed by Second Special Judge/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 128/1997 (State of U.P. Vs. Balram Singh and 2 others) u/s 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Khanna, District Hamirpur in Case Crime No. 141/1997 as well as Session Trial No. 143/1997 (State of U.P. Vs. Khalbhaliya) in Case Crime No. 148/1997, u/s 25 Arms Act, P.S. Khanna, District Hamirpur acquitting the accused herein.

2. Brief facts of the case so unfolded by the prosecution are to the effect that the informant Dully Chand S/o Kamtu R/o Village Akbai, Police Station Khanna, District Hamirpur claimed to be of Dhobi caste and according to the prosecution theory he along with his brother Moolchand, Shiv Narain, Chunna has proceeded towards the southern portion of the village near a pond for answering nature's call on fateful day i.e. 27.04.1997 at 5-6 in the evening and when they were crossing towards the outer portion of the pond then the accused who were three in number one of them being village Pradhan Balram Singh jointly obstructed movement of the aforesaid persons and directed the complainant fraction to do fishing work for them and when the complainant fraction exhibited their resistance then the accused fraction hurled abuses and threatened them that the complainant fraction will not be tolerated in the village and they will be ousted. Suddenly, when Mool Chand (since deceased) protested then the accused Balram Singh took out his rifle and the accused Khalbalia also took out single bore rifle and deceased Chuttan took out his double bore rifle and fired upon Mool Chand who fell down. It is further alleged that Shiv Charan tried to safe then with the rifle butt he was given a blow and he sustained injuries and thereafter the complainant fraction being Dully Chand, Shiv Narain and Chunna ran away from the site and went to their respective houses and after taking all necessary precautions regarding their life they stayed in their house in the night and they submitted a written report before the police station in the next morning.

3. Consequent to the submission of the written report, FIR was lodged in Police Station Khanna, Hamirpur on the next day i.e. 28.04.1997 at 08:30 am u/s 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act. As per the prosecution, recovery was also sought to be made of the rifle which was made the basis of commission of crime and three numbers of cartridges were also found so a FIR u/s 25 Arms Act was also lodged.

4. After lodging of the FIR Investigating Officer was nominated and consequent to the death of Mool Chand Panchayatnama was prepared, body was sent for postmortem and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses were recorded and all the formalities which were required for conduction of the investigation was pressed into service.

5. As Mool Chand (since deceased) is stated to have subjected to fatal fire arm injuries so charge sheet was submitted in Case Crime No. 141/1997 u/s 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Khana, Hamirpur and section 25 of the Arms Act in the subject Police Station in Case Crime No. 148/1997 (State of U.P. Vs. Khalbalia). During the pendency of the trial the accused Chuttan Singh expired and thus the present accused respondents were proceeded in the criminal case.

6. Case was committed to Sessions.

7. Charges were read over to the accused who are two in number they claimed to be tried while pleading innocence.

8. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges produced the following prosecution witnesses namely, (i) P.W. 1 Dully Chand, (ii) P.W. 2 Shiv Charan, (iii) P.W. 3 S. I. Atul Pradhan, (iv) P.W. 4 Chunna, (v) P.W. 5 Chakkan, (vi) P.W. 6 Dr. R.K. Khattar, (vii) P.W. 7 C. O. Ashok Kumar Verma, (viii) P.W. 8 S.H.O. Madhu Sud