An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when evidence is inconsistent.

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the State against acquittal of respondent vide judgment dated 27.2.2010 passed by the learned Session Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP in Sessions Case No. 20 - P / VII - 2007 in case FIR No. 227 of 2006 dated 19.08.2006 registered in Police Station Palampur, under S.324,307 IPC & S.25 of the Arms Act .

2. Prosecution case is that PW - 4 Rajeev Kumar was assaulted by respondent on 19.8.2006 at about 7.30 a.m in front of house of PW - 13 Bardu Ram with knife causing injuries in his abdomen and left wrist, which were grievous and dangerous to life and on hearing cries of PW - 4 Rajeev Kumar, PW - 13 Bardu Ram intervened and asked not to quarrel in front of his house, whereupon respondent left the spot and PW - 4 Rajeev Kumar approached PW - 2 Dr. Daljeet Singh and PW - 1 Dr. Navneet Chauhan, who advised him to visit hospital as injury was grievous in nature and was manageable in hospital only. Thereafter PW - 11 Kashmir Singh took him to his home wherefrom his father PW - 6 Trilok Chand, shifted him to hospital. On information received from PW - 3 Dr. Jaidesh Rana, Medical Officer, PW - 10 S.I. Mahinder Singh reached in Sub Divisional Hospital, Palampur and recorded EX.PW4 / A, statement of PW - 4 Rajeev Kumar under S.154 Cr.P.C. On the basis of said statement, PW - 9 Inspector Sanjeev Chauhan registered FIR EX.PW9 / B. PW - 4 Rajeev Kumar was referred to Dr. Rajinder Prasad, Government Medical College, Dharamshala, where he was operated by PW - 7 Dr. Ramesh Bharti. On completion of investigation, prima - facie finding complicity of respondent in committing the offence, challan was presented in the Court. On conclusion of trial, respondent has been acquitted. Hence, present appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record.

4. PW - 4 is injured and complainant. In his deposition in Court, he stated that dagger EX.P - 1, relied upon by the prosecution as weapon of offence, produced by respondent following disclosure statement under S.27 of Evidence Act, was not the weapon with which injury was inflicted upon him by respondent. He specifically stated that knife with which injury was inflicted was somewhat smaller in size than the dagger EX.P - 1. He stated that on stopping on asking of respondent who was carrying dholak around his neck and having dagger and torch in his hands, respondent stabbed him with knife and as a result of which his intestine came out. In his deposition in the Court, PW - 4 stated that wife of Bardu Ram came there and asked respondent not to quarrel, whereupon respondent picked - up his dholak and proceeded towards his house whereas in statement under S.154 Cr.P.C, he stated that incident in question was witnessed by PW - 13 Bardu Ram and his family and Bardu Ram asked them not to quarrel there and also in Court he is silent about presence of Bardu Ram or his other family members. As per statement under S.154 Cr.P.C, PW - 4 Rajeev Kumar approached PW - 2 Dr. Bablu @ Daljeet Singh who opined that his treatment was not possible in village and thereafter his father PW - 6 Trilok Chand brought him directly to Sub Divisional Hospital Palampur. Further case of prosecution is that police was informed by PW - 3 Jaidesh Rana , Medical Officer of the hospital and rapat No. 6 EX.PW9 / A was recorded in Police Station Palampur on receiving his telephonic message. Contrary to the same in his deposition in the Court, PW - 4 stated that firstly he went to residence of Dr. Daljit Chauhan @ Bablu and thereafter to residence of PW - 1 Dr. Navneet Chauhan where wife of Dr. Navneet Chauhan who was also Doctor came out but