IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court must exercise caution in appeals against acquittals, requiring compelling reasons to overturn a trial court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), as directed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial Nos. 325 of 2007 and 326 of 2007, whereby the said court, at the end of the trial, has acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 308 IPC and 25/4 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. In order to resolve the controversy the facts in a nutshell, as narrated in the FIR are that PW1-Navneet Roshan, who is the informant lodged an FIR with Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar with the averments that he is posted as a Driver in Nagar Palika, Haridwar. On 16.06.2007 at about 09:45 A.M., taking the vehicle (Minidor), he along with other employees were engaged in doing the sweeping work near the electric house and the sweepers, PW3-Bobi along with PW2-Net Ram were lifting garbage, meanwhile, the accused-respondent came and caught hold of PW3-Bobi. When PW3-Bobi tried to save himself, the accused gave a blow of knife on his head, due to which he sustained serious injuries and he was taken to Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama Hospital.

3. On the basis of this report, an FIR was registered and an entry was made in the G.D. The investigation was entrusted to PW8-S.I. Y.K. Sharma, who recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the site plan (Ex.Ka-7) and on completion of investigation submitted a charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-8) in the court. During investigation, a knife was recovered from possession of the accused, on the basis of which a case under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered. The investigation whereof was done by PW10-S.I. J.S. Negi, who during investigation also recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-14), in the court on completion of investigation. After committal, both 325 of 2007 and 326 of 2007 consolidated and decided together by the impugned judgment and order.

4. The charges were thereafter framed against the accused-respondent under Section 308 IPC and under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the court on 14.09.2007, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as ten witnesses viz. PW1-Navneet Roshan, PW2-Net Ram, PW3-Bobi (injured witness), PW4-Constable Pradeep Negi, PW5-Constable Vimal, PW6-Dr. K.P. Mittal, PW7-Rajbeer, PW8-S.I. Y.K. Sharma, PW9-S.I. Devendra Kumar and PW10-S.I. J.S. Negi.

6. On completion of prosecution evidence statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused stated the case to have been proceeded falsely against him and also denied recovery of knife from him, but no evidence was adduced in his defence. On culmination of trial, the accused-respondent was acquitted by the trial court vide impugned judgment as mentioned in paragraph no.1, of this judgment.

7. In this matter, as many as 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of which PW1 to PW3 are stated to be witnesses who have given the eye-witness account on the occurrence. PW6-Dr. K.P. Mittal is the Medical Officer, who provided medical aid to the injured, PW3-Bobi, PW7-Rajbeer is the person before whom the Investigating Officer received the blood stained articles relating to PW1-Navneet Roshan and sealed the same. Other witnesses are the Police employees who took part in the investigation of the matter.

8. PW1-Navneet Roshan in his chief has reiterated version of the FIR. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see that while catching hold, hands of accused-Ram Sukh were empty or not. He did not save Bobi. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that he did not see any weapon in the hands of the accused. He has merely stated that when he saw the accused had caught hold of PW3-Bobi, both were shouting and he saw back o