JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J. - Leave granted.

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent-accused, Mr. Vipul, under Section 302/34 of IPC, the State of Uttarakhand has challenged the judgment dated 06.03.2021, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District & Session Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that, on 20.10.2010, Mr. Arun Kumar (P.W. 1), lodged a complaint with P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein he claimed that "on the same day around 12:30 PM, there was a fight between his brother, Mohit, and Rakesh. During the fight, Rakesh stabbed his brother on stomach. Due to the injury, Mohit fell on the ground; Rakesh ran away. At the time of the incident, he was at his shop located at Sanjay Nagar Market. As soon as he was informed about the incident, he ran to the place of incident. He discovered that his brother was lying on the ground, and was bleeding from his stomach. He, immediately, informed his parents at home. Consequently, his mother also came there. The complainant took his brother in an auto to the nearest Government Hospital. But, considering the condition of his brother, his brother was referred to Sushila Tiwari Hospital".

3. Initially, the case was registered for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. However, with Mohit's death, the case was converted and registered for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, and submitted fourteen documents. The accused neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent, Mr. Vipul. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.

5. Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, has contended that, firstly, despite ample evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent-accused.

Secondly, according to Bhola Pandey (P.W. 4), an eye-witness, he had seen that both Vipul and Rakesh were assaulting the deceased. Therefore, Vipul's presence at the scene of crime cannot be doubted. Despite the over-whelming evidence, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused.

6. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned order.

7. It is, indeed, trite to state that in a case of direct evidence, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt.

8. There are certain established principles with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with an acquittal order. In the case of Sampat Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra, [(2019) 4 SCC 739], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles with regard to the powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against an acquittal order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

8. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415, laid down the following principles: (SCC p. 432, para 42)

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions