In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse, manifestly illegal, or unsupported by evidence, particularly when the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence or prove identification and digital records per statutory requirements.

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application preferred by the State under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 194 days in filing the present criminal leave to appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the application filed by the appellant – State for condonation of delay.

3. We have gone through the contentions raised in the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

4. We note that after the judgment having been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar on 03.09.2022, the matter was taken up before the competent authorities and after getting the due sanction from the said authority, the present appeal has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay.

5. We are satisfied that the appellant-State has furnished sufficient cause for filing the appeal after 194 days. Therefore, the delay of 194 days in filing the present criminal leave is condoned. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the leave to appeal is being heard today itself.

7. The present criminal leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as ”the learned trial court” ) in Sessions Case No.14/15 (CIS No.19/2015), whereby the accused-respondents, namely, Dharmaram, Jitendra Singh, Hanuman Singh and Girdhari Singh have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 120B & 396 of IPC. The accused-respondents Tejpal Singh and Balveer Singh have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 396, 302 & 120B of IPC & the accused-respondent Krishan Singh has been acquitted for the offfences under Section 148, 149, 323, 302, 120B & 396 of IPC and Section 3/27 of ARMS Act.

8. The facts in nutshell emerging from the record are that on 31.10.2014 at about 2:10 PM, the complainant – Narayan Singh submitted a written report at Police Station, Parbatsar stating inter alia that on the same day at about 10:00 am, he received a telephonic call from his son Rajendra Singh, which was made by one of his colleague, namely, Govind. It was informed that while Rajendra Singh and Govind were proceeding from Parbatsar towards Bhavasiya on a motorcycle at about 9:30 am, near Mandan Nadi, an unknown white vehicle came from behind and hit their motorcycle, as a result of which, both of them fell down. It is further stated that when Rajendra Singh objected to the occupants of the said vehicle, one person sitting in the front seat attempted to fire at him with a firearm, however, he did not suceed. Thereafter, two persons, one armed with a gun and the other with a stick, alighted from the vehicle and chased Rajendra Singh and Govind, who, out of fear, ran towards the fields. It is alleged that after chasing them for some distance, the person armed with the gun fired towards Rajendra Singh from close range, hitting him on the chest, and thereafter, upon exhortation by the other assailant, fired another shot, which hit Rajendra Singh on his left arm and as a result of which, he fell down. It is also alleged that the other assailant assaulted Govind with a stick, forcibly made him squat and snatched his cell. As per the report, after the incident, the assailants fled away in their vehicle. Upon receiving the information, the complainant reached Parbatsar where Govind narrated the entire incident and stated that he could identify the