IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is crucial in criminal law, necessitating clear evidence for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :

This is a Government Appeal along with an application seeking leave to appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 15.04.2023, whereby the respondent-accused, namely, Abhishek Bohra (respondent no.2) was acquitted of charges under Section 307/120B IPC and respondent-accused, namely, Harendra Sharma (respondent no.1) was acquitted of the charges under Section 307/149 IPC and 120B/307 IPC.

Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1/2024)

2. As per office report, there is delay of 215 days’ in filing the Government Appeal.

3. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, delay of 215 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned.

Special Leave to Government Appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report was lodged by S.I. Rakesh Bhatt at Police Station Mangalore on 28.08.2012. In the first information report, it was alleged that police party headed by S.I. Rakesh Bhatt and Constable Sandeep Pundir were on patrolling in a Government Vehicle No.UK 08 GA 0157; on information received from informer that near Rana Factory, a wagon-R car was stationed and in that car, some suspected persons were there; the police party reached the spot and on getting an indication reached near the car, at this one of the person standing there suddenly after seeing the police, shouted that the police had reached and told to fire them, otherwise they would get caught; at this, two fires were shot on the police party. It is further alleged that the police party after applying the force caught two persons on the spot, one person disclosed his name as Sudhir Kumar, S/o Chain Singh, R/o Mohammadpur Jatt, Police Station Manglore, Haridwr; on search, a 12 bore country-made pistol was recovered from his right hand and the other disclosed his name as Sumit Sharma, S/o Harendra Singh, R/o Ramleela Teela, Gali No.1, Police Station Kotwali, Muzzafarnagar and on being searched, a 9 m.m. pistol kept in right side of his waist was recovered. These two persons on asking by the police disclosed the number of wagon-R car and also told that Ashish Chaudhary, R/o Ladwa, Thana Charthawal, Muzzafarnagar was their leader and Gaurav Sharma, R/o of Bhopa fled from the spot in the said vehicle. They fired upon the police party.

6. On the basis of the first information report, the case crime number was registered and the matter was investigated. The learned trial court acquitted Sudhir, Ashish and Gaurav Sharma of the charges under Section 120B IPC and accused-Sumit Sharma of the charges under Section 120B and 420 IPC and further acquitted accused person- Abhishek Bora (respondent no.2) of the charges under Section 307/120B IPC, accused person-Harendra Sharma (respondent no.1) and accused person-Adhesh of the charges under Sections 307/149 IPC and Section 120B/307 and accused persons-Sudhir, Ashish, Sumit Sharma and Gaurav Sharma, however, were convicted under Sections 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced accordingly.

7. It is against the acquittal of the respondents-accused persons of the aforesaid charges as mentioned above, the State has filed the Government Appeal along with Special Leave to appeal.

8. With the help of learned State Counsel, we have gone through the impugned judgment and order.

9. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is reflected that the respondent-accused persons were acquitted of the charges for the reason that no recovery has been made from them. The respondents-accused persons were not named in the first information report and their names came up only on the statement of the co-accused. Further, there is no allegation of causing any injuries by these respondent-accused persons. It is for this reason the learned trial court did not find the case of the prosecution proved against the respondents-accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Para 32 of the trial co