IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution are paramount in criminal cases, particularly in appeals against acquittals.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This appeal preferred by the State under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to be as “the Cr.P.C”) is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.03.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/2nd F.T.C. Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2002, State vs. Attaurahaman & others, whereby the said court has acquitted the respondents-accused of the charge of offence punishable under Section 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 504 & 506 IPC along with Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to be as “the SC/ST Act”).

2. The genesis of the prosecution case is that the alleged occurrence took place on 29.10.2001 at about 8:30 p.m. It was alleged in the FIR that the father of informant, namely, Sukhlal was going to answer a call of nature towards a Tube-well. While going, informant’s father saw the respondents-accused being armed with weapons viz. accused-Attaurahaman was armed with a country-made pistol, accused-Kaalu was holding a palkati (a sharp edged weapon) in his hand, accused-Anis was holding a baton and a knife while one other person holding iron rod in his hand and they were tempering with a transformer. When the father of the informant checked the respondents from doing so, they, with a common intention, assaulted the father of informant with the weapons held by them in their hands. On hearing the sound of fire-shot and commotion, people of village came on the spot, who too sustained injuries and an oral intimidation of caste indicative words that they too would not be left alive and accordingly assaulted them with the intention to kill. Then, some other people of village, namely, Shyam Lal, Kanvar and Dharamveer and others came on the spot, who saved the informant and other persons from the clutches of accused. The informant took his father and injured-Raju to the Government Hospital, Roorkee where they were medically examined. With these facts, the first information report was lodged on 30.10.2001 at Police Station Gangnahar, Roorkee.

3. On the basis of aforesaid information, the case was registered against the accused persons on 30.10.2001 at 00:15 hours under the relevant sections of IPC as also under the SC & ST Act. The matter was investigated. The Investigating Officer during investigation converted the case from Section 307 IPC to that of Sections 324 & 325 IPC and accordingly, he submitted a charge-sheet in the court against the accused persons. The charges were framed accordingly. As many as nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, the statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, they produced three witnesses. The trial court by way of impugned judgment has recorded the findings of acquittal qua the respondents-accused. Hence, the State has come up in appeal before this Court challenging the judgment of acquittal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.

5. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that the trial court passed an elaborate judgment for recording the findings of acquittal in respect of accused. The reasons assigned by the court below for passing such judgment are given hereinbelow:-

(a) This occurrence is in the last of October month which too in the night hours at 08:30 p.m. It is not the case of the prosecution that it was a moonlit night. On the basis of occurrence and from the evidence so produced, it is not reflected that there was any source of light available on the spot. On the date of occurrence, no person used any source of light in order to identify each other either by torch, matchbox or fire. One person could not be identified as mentioned in the first information report, whereas how remaining three accused could be identified in a pitch dark night is not proved by the prosecution, particularly, when the accused were