The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference with an acquittal order and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to disturb an acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - Aggrieved by the acquittal of Mohan Ram, (the accused-respondent herein), by judgment dated 15.10.2019, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2016, the State has filed the present appeal before this Court.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 14.12.2015, Dinesh Ram (P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ex. Ka 4), before the SHO, Police Station-Chamoli, wherein he claimed that his brother-Bharat Lal (the deceased) used to work as a labourer at Joshimath. Yesterday, on 13.12.2015, around 07:30 P.M., he met his brother, along with Vikram Lal, Churi Lal, Jaspal Lal, and Tula Ram. These persons were travelling with Mohan Ram in Mohan Ram's truck. The truck number of the accused, Mohan Ram, is UA-07-4787. At the time of meeting, his brother told him that he is going to their village. At that time, the complainant left for Village Narangi for attending a marriage. He further claimed that at night, he came back to his house. But his brother did not come back to their house. He further claimed that, since his uncle's house is on the way to his house, he thought that perhaps his brother has stayed at his uncle's house. In the morning, on 14.12.2015, a Member of the Zila Panchayat, namely, Guddu Lal, informed him that there is a body of an unknown person lying dead on the road. He further told that him perhaps, it is his brother. Therefore, the complainant went to the place, where the dead-body was lying; he discovered that it was, indeed, the body of his brother. The complainant suspected that his brother has been killed by Vikram Lal, Churi Lal, Jaspal Lal, and Tula Ram.

3. On the basis of this written report (Ex. Ka 4), a formal FIR, being FIR No. 20 of 2015, (Ex. Ka 11) was registered against Vikram Lal, Churi Lal, Jaspal Lal, Tula Ram and Mohan Ram for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 201 of IPC. The investigation commenced.

4. After completing the investigation, however, the police filed a charge-sheet only against Mohan Ram, and arrayed Vikram Lal, Churi Lal, Jaspal Lal, Tula Ram as eye-witnesses.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, submitted twenty-six documents, and produced twelve material objects. However, the defense neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document.

6. After assessing the evidence, produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused, Mohan Ram, by its judgment dated 15.10.2019. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.

7. Mr. Jagjit Singh Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

Firstly, despite the fact that this case is based on the direct evidence, and in spite of the fact that the prosecution has produced Jaspal Lal (P.W. 2), Vikram Lal (P.W.3), Churi Lal (P.W.5) and Tula Ram (P.W. 7) as the eye-witnesses, the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused.

Secondly, Dr. Gautam Naithani (P.W.9) had proven the Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit Ka-9). He had clearly established the fact that Bharat Lal had died a homicidal death. But despite these overwhelming direct evidence, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused.

Lastly, the prosecution has also established that a mobile phone belonging to the deceased, and a blood-stained sweater were recovered at the instance of the accused. However, even these corroborative pieces of evidence have been ignored by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the acquittal order deserves to be set aside by this Court. In fact, accused Mohan Ram deserves to be convicted for the aforementioned offense.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Milind Raj, the learned counsel for the accused, has raised the following counter-arguments:-

Firstly, the scope of interference with an acquittal order is extremely limited. An acquittal order can be set aside, if it were perverse. The perversity would emanate from the fact that the learned Trial Court has eith