IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. State has filed this government appeal No. 229/2007 against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2003 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-IV, District Haridwar in Case Crime No.264 of 2001 [S.T. No. 21/2002] (State vs. Upendra @ Nitu) whereby the respondent-Upendra @ Nitu has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

3. State has also preferred G.A. No. 32/2009 challenging the acquittal of respondents under Sections 307/34 and 411 of Indian Penal Code in S.T. No. 19 of 2002 (Case Crime No. 262 of 2001). During pendency of appeal, respondent no.1-Harendra @ Raj died, hence appeal qua respondent no.1 was abated vide this Court’s order dated 01/12/2023.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that on 30/05/2001 at around 05:00 PM, one of the informers informed the police that dreaded criminal Jitendra, who himself was in jail, has sent four of his men to kill a contractor. He also informed that they are coming in a yellow Santro car bearing registration number DL 6 CG 2578 and are also carrying weapons. He informed that they are presently in Haridwar. On receiving this information the police party reached the place the informer had told them and waited there hiding in the bushes. As soon as they saw a yellow Santro car coming from Bilkeshwar colony, they stopped the car. Four persons were seated in the car and as soon as the police personnel tried to come closer to the car they started firing upon them. Somehow the police personnel managed to save themselves and arrested all the persons who were in the car. The accused persons told their names as Harendra @ Raj, Upendra @ Nitu, Dharmendra @ Kanchu and Deepak @ Bharat. The accused persons further informed that the car in which they were travelling was stolen by a person named Dhoom Singh. On the basis of above information, the case was registered on 30/05/2001 at police station Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar under Sections 307/34 and 411 of Indian Penal Code against all the accused and under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act against Upendra@ Nitu and Harendra@ Raj.

5. The investigation officer conducted investigation of the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after inspecting the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan, inquest and on completion of investigation submitted a charge sheet under Sections 307/34 and 411 of Indian Penal Code against all the accused and under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act against Upendra @ Nitu and Harendra @ Raj. The cognizance was taken against the accused/respondents and the case was committed to Learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial.

6. The charges were framed against the accused/respondents under Sections 307/34 and 411 of Indian Penal Code against all the accused and under Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act against Upendra and Harendra which they denied and claimed to be tried.

7. As many as four witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. They are PW-1 Inspector Ajay Kumar, PW-2 S.I. Sanjay Chauhan, PW-3 Kashivishwanath Tyagi, PW-4 Head Constable Rishi Kumar and documentary evidence was also proved and exhibited by the prosecution witnesses.

8. Thereafter, the statements of accused/ respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, the accused persons stated the prosecution case to be false and stated that they were innocent but did not give any evidence in defence.

9. The trial court on conclusion of trial found that the prosecution could not prove the case against the accused/respondents beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly proceeded to acquit the accused/respondents as mentioned in Para 2 and Para 3 of this judgment. Hence, these two government appeals.

10. PW-1 Inspector Ajay Kumar reiterated the version of the FIR and stated that on that evening he along with S.I. R.B. Chamola, S.I. Sanjay Chauhan, Head Constable Yogendra Singh and Constable Rampal were wa