The judgment emphasized the need for substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with an acquittal order and highlighted the importance of examining evidence in detail.

JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.02.2013, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Session Trial No.82 of 2008, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Mr. Ramesh Beragi and Mr. Rajesh Hani for the offences under Sections 323 read with 34, 307 read with 34 and Section 452 of IPC, the State of Uttarakhand has filed the present appeal before this Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, on 29.04.1998, the complainant, Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (P.W. 2), filed a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) before the Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein he claimed that on 24.04.1998, he was returning from Delhi and going to Almora with his wife, and gunman, Mr. Bhawan Singh Dhami (P.W. 4). On the way to Rudrapur, they stopped at his factory located at Kuchal Industries. After some time, few unknown persons forcefully entered his factory, and tried to kill him. These persons had come for extorting money from him. These persons also misbehaved with his wife. When these persons fired from their country-made pistol, the pellets hit the face of his gunman, Mr. Bhawan Singh Dhami (P.W. 4). He immediately told his gunman to fire in the air. These persons tried to snatch the stun gun belonging to his gunman. During the scuffle, bullets were fired. These persons snatched the gunman's gun. They fired at him on his head. However, the pellets did not hit his gunman, but hit the stones. His gunman picked up his gun and both, he and his gunman, ran into the factory. He further claimed that he, his wife and his gunman went to the Police Station Rudrapur at 4 PM.However, despite his giving a written report at the police station, the police refused to register the report. Instead, they were arrested by the police. He further claimed that he sent his wife home along with a friend of his. He further claimed that, those who had assaulted him and his gunman introduced themselves. Their names are Sunil Chauhan, Dhananjay Shukla, Ramesh Beragi, Rajesh Hani and two more persons. Lastly, according to him, the incident had occurred on 24.04.1998 between 03:35 to 03:40 PM. He further claimed that his gunman Bhawan Singh Dhami (PW4) has not been given any medical treatment. Therefore, he prayed that not only for impartial investigation, but also that his gunman should be given medical treatment immediately.

3. On the basis of this written report which was sent by Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2), through the Jailor of Sub-Jail Haldwani to the police station, a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 129 of 1998, was chalked out.

4. After investigation, the police initially submitted a Negative Final Report (FR), inter alia, on the ground that the complainant and his gunman were already involved in FIR No.299 of 1998, for offences under Sections 302/307 of IPC. Therefore, the FIR lodged by the complainant was merely a clever play for protecting themselves. However, by order dated 11.02.2000, the learned Trial Court refused to accept the Negative Final Report. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet against the three accused persons mentioned hereinabove, for the offences under Sections 323 read with 34, 307 read with 34 and Section 452 of IPC.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and submitted eight documents. The defence neither examined any witness nor submitted any document.

6. After appreciating the evidence brought by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court acquitted the three accused persons by judgment dated 25.02.2013. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.

7. Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, has vehemently pleaded that the learned Trial Court has ignored the fact that the FIR is not meant to be encyclopedic in its content. Merely because certain vital facts were not mentioned in the FIR lodged by Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2), it would not cast any d