Judgment Reserved on: 13.02.2026 Judgment Pronounced on: 10.04.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021 Harilal ......Appellant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Mr. Pooram Singh Rawat, learned Amicus Curiae for the Appellant appearing through V.C.

Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Jail Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, Harilal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the judgment and order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2020, whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of eight years each, along with fine of Rs. 5,000 on each count, with default stipulations.

2. As per the case of the State, an incident is alleged to have occurred on the night of 29.06.2020 at about 10:00 PM at Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag, where the injured, namely Parmeshwar, along with the Appellant and another person, was present in a room. It is alleged that after having dinner, a dispute arose between the Appellant and the injured over playing music on a mobile phone. The altercation escalated, and it is alleged that the Appellant, in a fit of anger, inflicted a knife blow on the abdomen of the injured and thereafter fled from the spot.

3. It is further the case of the State that the injured was initially taken to the Primary Health Centre at Ukhimath and thereafter referred to higher medical centres in view of the seriousness of the injury. The First Information Report came to be lodged on 30.06.2020 at about 13:15 hours at Police Station Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag. Upon investigation, charge sheet came to be submitted against the Appellant under Sections 307 and 326 IPC.

4. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed, and charges were framed accordingly. The State, in order to bring home the guilt of the Appellant, examined the injured witness and other prosecution witnesses, including witnesses relating to recovery and investigation. The defence of the Appellant, as emerges from the record, was one of denial and false implication.

5. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial court recorded a finding of conviction against the Appellant under Sections 307 and 326 IPC and imposed the aforesaid sentence, which is under challenge in the present appeal.

6. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the Appellant submits that the impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities and the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside.

7. It is contended that the case of the State rests primarily upon the testimony of the injured witness; however, the same is not wholly reliable. It is submitted that in his cross-examination, the injured has made material statements indicating that the expenses of his treatment were borne by the family of the Appellant and that he does not wish to pursue action against him. According to learned Counsel, these aspects create doubt regarding the prosecution version.

8. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of the weapon of offence is doubtful inasmuch as the independent witness of recovery has not supported the case of the State. In the absence of reliable recovery, the connection between the alleged weapon and the Appellant remains unestablished.

9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submits that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report, which has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby affecting the credibility of the prosecution case.

10. It is also urged that the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not made out. It is submitted that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel without any premeditation, and only a single blow is alleged to have been inflict