IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI ON THIS DAY OF 7TH JANUARY, 2025 Leave to Appeal No. 525 of 2024 With Government Appeal No. 296 of 2024 BETWEEN State of Uttarakhand … Applicant And Sain Singh … Respondent Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy AG, for the State/appellant. JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) IA/1/2024 (Delay Condonation Application) Present appeal has been preferred with the delay of 50 days. We have perused the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. We are satisfied that the delay has properly been explained. Therefore, application, seeking condonation of delay, is allowed. Delay is condoned. SPLA/525/2024 (Application Seeking Leave to Appeal) By this petition under Section 419(3) of BNSS, State/petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment/order dated 9.8.2024, passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2021, 2 thereby acquitting the respondent from the charges framed against him under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC. 2. Having heard learned State Counsel and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, following facts have emerged: 2.1 An FIR was lodged by Mukesh Rana on 20.4.2018 alleging that on 19.4.2018, when his father had gone to Village Bhadrasu to attend a wedding function, he was assaulted by the respondent with Khukhri, in which he suffered injuries which started bleeding. When one Harimohan tried to intervene, finger of his left hand was cut. 2.2 After investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the accused respondent. 2.3 To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. PW1 Mukesh Rana (son of injured Chain Singh) is the complainant; PW2 is victim Chain Singh; PW3 Harimohan Singh is an eyewitness; PW4 is Karmchand, in whose house wedding function was going on and where the alleged incident took place; PW5 Dr. Subodh Kumar Joshi medically examined the witness, and PW6, PW7 and PW8 conducted the investigation. 2.4 Accused respondent pleaded complete innocence and stated that victim is an alcoholic person, who suffered the injuries in drunken state. 2.5 Learned Trial Court recorded the finding of acquittal, holding that prosecution 3 failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubts and possibility could not be ruled out that the victim suffered injuries in any manner elsewhere. 3. While appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court noticed that PW1 (complainant) and PW4 are hearsay witnesses; testimony of PW3 does not inspire confidence inasmuch as he is relative of PW1 (complainant) and PW2 (victim), he was under influence of alcohol at the time of alleged incident and, as per the case of prosecution, his finger was cut in the alleged incident, but there is not an iota of evidence regarding the treatment he received. Learned Trial Court also disbelieved the recovery of weapon (khukhri) as the alleged recovery was made on 14.8.2018, i.e. almost four months after the alleged incident, from the place of occurrence, which happens to be the house of PW4, and no blood was found on khukhri in the forensic examination. Learned Trial Court also noticed that complainant (PW1), who was admittedly not present at the spot at the time alleged incident, nowhere stated as to how and from whom he received the information of the said incident. Learned Trial Court further noticed that medical examination report of victim confirms that there was breath smell of alcohol and PW5, who medically examined the victim, stated that both the injuries were simple in nature and the same could be sustained if someone falls on some sharp edged object in inebriated state. 4 Learned Trial Court also noticed that complainant was admittedly not present at the spot and his house was situated at a distance of nearly 70 kilometres from the place of occurrence, then how the complainant and his wife shifted the victim to the Primary Health Centre within one and half hours of the alleged incident. This is also in contradiction of the testimony of PW3, who stated that it was he who shifted the victim to the Primary Health Centre at Mori. Learned Trial Court noticed many other glaring contradictions in the prosecution evidence and held that all the evidence adduced by prosecution is not cogent and reliable and also not inspired the confidence and thus the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubts and the defence taken by the accused that the victim suffered injuries in any manner elsewhere is also a possibility in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 4. We find no illegality or perversity in the finding of acquittal returned by the Trial Court and the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. It is settled law that the Appellate Court may overrule or otherwise disturb the finding of acquittal only if it has very substantial and compelling reasons to do so. 5. Since no arguable points have been raised nor any material has been brought to our notice, which may require deeper 5 consideration and re-appreciation or reconsideration of evidence, we refuse to grant leave to appeal. Leave petition is dismissed. Government appeal also stands dismissed accordingly. _______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. ___________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Pr