JUDGMENT :

(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

For the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, the delay of 75 days in preferring the present Government Appeal is, hereby, condoned. Delay Condonation Application is, hereby, allowed.

2. The application seeking Special Leave to Appeal is, hereby, allowed. Leave granted.

3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent-accused, Ravindra Kashyap, for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the State of Uttarakhand has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Third Additional Session Judge, Haridwar.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 21.02.2018 Shravan Kumar (P.W. 1) lodged a report with the Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar, wherein he claimed that his son, Aman Kashyap, aged 18 years, had left the house around 12 o'clock in the afternoon with his friend Sachin, S/o Roopchand, R/o Himgiri Colony, Kankhal, and Ravindra Kashyap, S/o Mahavir Kashyap, R/o Chetandev Kutiya, Kankhal. His son has not returned back home. When he asked both his friends, they informed him that they had left Aman Kashyap at 12:30 P.M. at the Kankhal Chowk Bazar. They further informed that, thereafter, they have no information about the whereabouts of his son. He further claimed that he had tried to contact his son on both his mobile numbers, which were with him. However, the mobile numbers were switched off. He further described his son. Initially, the complaint was registered for a missing person. However, subsequently, the complaint was converted into F.I.R. No. 81 of 2018 for offences under Sections 201 and 304 IPC against both Sachin and Ravindra Kashyap. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheets were filed against both the accused persons for the said offences.

5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, and submitted fifteen documents. After completing the trial, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused for offence under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, but convicted the respondent-accused for offence under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The sentence was reduced to as undergone, but the respondent-accused was imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Since the appellant-State is aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent-accused, it has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, has pleaded that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the accused. For, there is the evidence of the last seen. Secondly, a wrong explanation was given by the accused for the disappearance of the deceased. Thus, both these factors unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. Hence, the learned Trial Court has committed an error while acquitting the accused.

7. Heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and perused the impugned judgment.

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, la