JUDGMENT : Romesh Verma, J. The present appeal arises out of the judgment as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (III), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. on 01.12.2014, whereby the present respondent has been acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 5/2014, under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) in FIR No. 108/08 dated 10th July, 2008 registered at Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.07.2008 one Alto Car bearing registration No. HP 53- 5288 came in the premises of police and in the same one person was sitting. Alongwith him, one Amit Chawla Supervisor/Contractor, Bali Nath, Arun Gupta and Salesh Yadav were also sitting. On enquiry, he told that his name is Pashupati Nath Gupta, S/O Sh. Laxman Gupta, R/O Jagdishpur, P.O. Basant, Police Station Garkha, District Chhapra, Bihar. His statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded while sitting in the car Itself. He stated that he is permanent resident of District Chhapra Bihar and working in the Subhash Group of Company as a Foreman. He stated that he is working with contractor Nishant @ Goldi, Hydel Project Luni-I. On previous day, i.e. 09.07.2008 at about 10:00 P.M. in the evening after having meal, he was sleeping alongwith his companions in a shed. When he went to sleep, at that time, the shop of Bhawani, which is adjacent to his shed, was closed. After 10-15 minutes Bhawani Singh, S/O Busheri Ram, resident of Lulani, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., came outside the shed and started shouting his name, when he came outside and enquired why he is calling him, Bhawani asked him to lift 5- 10 bags of cement. When he refused, then Bhawani went to his shop and brought one chopping knife (Tokka) from his shop and attacked him with intention to do away with his life. Had he not raised his arm, the said chopping knife would have insected in his neck and he would have died. As a result of attack, his right hand was severally injured. Thereafter, he (complainant) started to run away towards the security guard. Respondent Bhawani also ran after him. The complainant changed his path and went to the house of Harish Supervisor, who called Amit Supervisor/Contractor and was told about the incident. As a result of attack, his right hand was severally injured. Thereafter, he (complainant) started to run away towards the security guard. Respondent Bhawani also ran after him. The complainant changed his path and went to the house of Harish Supervisor, who called Amit Supervisor/Contractor and was told about the incident. After some time, Amit Supervisor, Bali Nath, Arun and Salesh Kumar Yadav also came on the spot. He was taken to Baijnath, Palampur and Tanda hospitals and from Tanda Hospital, he was referred to DMC Ludhiana. 3. On completion of investigation, the police presented the challan against the accused in the Court for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC . 4. On finding a prima facie case, accused (respondent herein) was charged for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC , to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial. 5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses in all. Thereafter, respondent/ accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He pleaded innocence and did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The learned trial court, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted the respondent, as aforesaid, constraining the appellant-State to file the instant appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. I.N.Mehta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellant- State and Mr. Adarsh. K. Vashishta, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and have also gone through the records of the case in detail. 8. At the outset, it would be necessary to reproduce the evidence led by the prosecution. 9. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined Pashupati Nath Gupta (victim), as PW-8, who deposed that he was working with Subhash Group of Companies for the last four years. In the year 2008, he had worked through above stated company with a contractor Nishant Goldi, R/O Delhi in Lunani-I Hydel project situated at place Lunani. Besides him, 21 other person were working with the contractor and Amit Chawla was Supervisor. He stated that they used to reside at the project site at Lunani in a labour hut made of tin. He further stated that he knew accused present in the Court, who was running a shop of grocery beside the project site at Lunani and he used to sell chicken also. He stated that they used to reside at the project site at Lunani in a labour hut made of tin. He further stated that he knew accused present in the Court, who was running a shop of grocery beside the project site at Lunani and he used to sell chicken also. He stated that on 09.06.2008 (wrongly stated, the date of incident is 09.07.2008) when he alongwith his companions was sleeping in the shed at Lunani then at about 9:30/10:00 P.M. he was called by the accused by calling him ‘Gupta Ji’, come out. He came out from the shed. Respondent demanded cement from him and he refused to provide the same. There was no light at that time. The shop of accused was about 25 metres away from the shed. There was a water channel in between the shed and the shop. There was light of the shop of the accused. PW-8 also stated that when he refused to provide cement, accused abused him and went to his shop and brought a chopping knife and gave a blow on his neck and in order to save himself, he raised his left arm and the blow of knife cut his arm as well as broke the bone of arm. He stated that had he not raised his left arm, accused would have cut his neck. He ran towards the backside of the shed. Accused chased him and to save himself from accused, he ran towards Village Deval because Harish Supervisor was residing there. He went to the house of Harish and told the entire incident to him. Harish then called other supervisor Amit Chawla on telephone. Alongwith Amit, Bali Nath, Salesh and Arun also came in the house of Harish. There was no security on the project site, where they were living, but the security was only at dumping site which was far away. Thereafter, he was taken by Amit and others to Baijnath hospital. At Baijnath hospital, medical aid was not provided to him and then he was taken to Palampur hospital and then taken to Tanda hospital at Kangra. He was medically treated at Tanda hospital and from Tanda he was referred to DMC Ludhiana and while he was on his way to DMC Ludhiana, he was taken to P.S.Baijnath on the next day of occurrence. He was medically treated at Tanda hospital and from Tanda he was referred to DMC Ludhiana and while he was on his way to DMC Ludhiana, he was taken to P.S.Baijnath on the next day of occurrence. PW-8 further stated that he was in a vehicle with a drip fixed to him. His statement was recorded by the police which is Ext. PW-8/A and bears his signature at red encircled at point ‘A’. He stated that Amit Chawla, Arun and Bali Nath associated him to DMC Ludhiana and he remained in DMC Ludhiana till 28.07.2008 for about 18 days for his treatment. 10. On cross-examination, PW-8 Pashupati Nath Gupta stated that large amount of blood oozed out from his wound and his clothes were drenched with blood. Those cloths were kept by him at his home till today i.e. on the day of deposition. He stated that police did not enquire about his blood stained clothes. He stated that they met the doctor in the Baijnath hospital at about 11:45 P.M.(night) and doctor had asked firstly to report the police and told that thereafter he would be examined. He stated that four persons namely; Amit Chawla, Bali Nath, Arun Gupta and Salesh went with him to hospital Baijnath. He did not inform the doctor the name of person, who had inflicted injury to him. Self stated that he was unconscious and he further stated that Amit Chawla had disclosed the name of accused to the Medical Officer. They reached Palampur hospital at about 12:45 P.M. (night) and thereafter he was taken to Tanda hospital by Amit Chawla. Medical Officer at Palampur informed that he could not give any medical treatment to him. They reached in Tanda hospital at about 2:30 P.M. He stated that he did not disclose the name of assailant to the Medical Officer at Tanda hospital. Further, he admitted that at Ludhiana also he did not disclose the name of assailant, self stated that the name of the assailant was already on the record file. He denied that he used to remain intoxicated 24 hours. He further denied that he used to enter in the residential house of other persons in intoxicated condition. He further denied the suggestion that name of the assailant was not known to him. He denied that he used to remain intoxicated 24 hours. He further denied that he used to enter in the residential house of other persons in intoxicated condition. He further denied the suggestion that name of the assailant was not known to him. He also stated that he had no prior enmity with the accused person, self stated that incident took place because accused had demanded cement from him and he refused to supply the same. 11. Sh. Ajay Kumar, was examined as PW-1. He stated that he was running a photography studio in the name and style of Ajay Studio at Paprola for the last 12 years. On 10.07.2008, he associated the police at the place of occurrence in Village Lulani and took photographs with his digital camera, which are Ext. PW-1/A to PW-1/D and provided the same to police. 12. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he saw blood near the shop and also near the tin shed. He did not know whether the blood was seen by him in front of the shed or at the back of the shed. The clots of the blood were present in front of shutter of shop. He visited the spot at about 6:00 P.M. He stated that he did not know who is the owner of the clothes. He took the photographs of the spot as per direction of the police. 13. Sh. Jeet Ram was examined as PW-2. He stated that he was working as a labourer in Subhash Group of companies and in the year 2008, he was working in the project site at Village Lulani. He stated that Manoj Kumar was also labourer in that project and he knew the accused, who was running the grocery shop as well as chicken shop. He further stated that police inspected the spot, however, he could not tell the date. He stated that in his presence police had collected the blood stains for about 2-3 metres ahead from the shop of the accused and also from other places beyond the shop. He stated that he forgot the date and the duration of incident when occurred. He stated that accused/respondent was brought by the police in custody on his shop at Lulani. He alongwith Manoj associated the police and police brought a chopping knife from their vehicle and went to the shop of accused and performed all the proceedings there. He stated that he forgot the date and the duration of incident when occurred. He stated that accused/respondent was brought by the police in custody on his shop at Lulani. He alongwith Manoj associated the police and police brought a chopping knife from their vehicle and went to the shop of accused and performed all the proceedings there. He further stated that chopping knife was not recovered from the shop in his presence. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor requested the learned Court below to declare PW-2 as hostile and sought permission to cross-examine the witness. 15. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted that quarrel took place between Pashupati Nath Gupta and respondent/accused but he cannot tell the date. He denied that chopping knife was brought by the accused in his presence from the shop. The shop was opened by the wife of the respondent after arrival of the police. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 10.07.2008 and on 15.07.2008. He denied that he had given portion ‘A to A’ of his statement Ext. PW-2/C to the I.O. Shirt was produced by the accused which was taken into possession by the I.O. through seizure memo Ext. PW-2/D, which was signed by him. However, ‘pant’ was not recovered in his presence by the police. He denied that he wanted to save the accused from criminal law, self stated that he has told the true facts to the Court. He further denied that he intentionally resiled from his statement. 16. In his cross-examination by learned Defence counsel, PW-2 admitted that shop and the shed are situated at sufficient distance. He admitted that chickens were cut in front of the shop. He admitted that blood was lifted from the place where chickens used to be cut. He further admitted that blood was also lifted by the police from the backside of the shop. He admitted that police took the seal alongwith them. 17. Sh. Megh Nath was examined as PW-3. He stated that he knew the accused, who is from his village and brotherhood. He stated that the respondent did not disclose anything to police in his presence and the statement of disclosure of the respondent/accused was already written by the police. The police also got signed the same. He stated that he had read over the disclosure statement Ext. PW-3/A and thereafter signed the same in red encircle. He stated that the respondent did not disclose anything to police in his presence and the statement of disclosure of the respondent/accused was already written by the police. The police also got signed the same. He stated that he had read over the disclosure statement Ext. PW-3/A and thereafter signed the same in red encircle. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor requested the Court to declare the witness hostile as he had suppressed material facts of the case. 18. On cross-examination, by learned Public prosecutor, PW-3 stated that he is Pradhan of Contractor Association. He admitted that a criminal case was filed against the accused because he attacked Pashupati Nath Gupta with chopping knife, self stated that he is not an eye witness to this incident. 19. In his cross-examination by learned Defence Counsel, PW-3, stated that Bhagwan Dass did not give any disclosure statement in his presence about the recovery of chopping knife. He admitted that police had already written the disclosure statement on their own and they asked him to sign it and on their direction, he had signed the same. 20. HC Punni Chand No. 133, was examined as PW-4, who stated that he was posted at MHC in Police Station Baijnath since 2007 and he had brought the original Malkhana register as well as road certificate book of P.S. Baijnath. He stated that on 10.07.2008, ASI Rajinder Pal had deposited two sealed parcels pertaining to this case in the Malkhana alongwith sample of the seal and he accordingly entered the same at Sr. No. 189/08. ASI Rajinder Pal again deposited two sealed parcels alongwith sample of seal in the malkhana on 15.07.2008 and he entered the same at Sr. No. 190/08. On 17.08.2008, vide RC No. 106 of 2021, he dispatched above stated case property in intact condition to FSL Junga through Constable HHC Dilver Singh No. 1138. After depositing the same in the FSL, Dilver Singh submitted the original RC alongwith receipt of the FSL to him which he pasted on the RC book. 21. HHC Dilver Singh No. 1138, appeared in the witness box as PW-5, who stated that he was posted in P.S. Baijnath w.e.f. 2007. On 17.08.2008 MHC Sh. Punni Chand handed over to him four sealed parcels pertaining to this case, which are Ext. 21. HHC Dilver Singh No. 1138, appeared in the witness box as PW-5, who stated that he was posted in P.S. Baijnath w.e.f. 2007. On 17.08.2008 MHC Sh. Punni Chand handed over to him four sealed parcels pertaining to this case, which are Ext. P-1, P-2, P-5 and P-7 vide RC No. 106/2021 in sealed condition with sample of seal with the direction to deposit the same in FSL Junga. On 18.08.2008, he deposited the case property in intact condition in FSL, Junga and on his return handed over the receipt to the MHC. 22. Doctor Jyotinder Kaul, was examined as PW-6. He stated that in the year 2008, he was working as M.O. Civil hospital Baijnath. On 10.07.2008, at 4:05 P.M., police of Baijnath moved an application Ext. PW-6/A for medico legal examination of injured Pashupati Nath Gupta, S/O Sh. Laxman Dass Gupta, who was 56 years old male. He stated that there was a CIW over the ventral aspect of left forearm about one and a half inch from the wrist joint. The margins were clean and blood over the wound clotted and blood started oozing out on touch. The extensor tendons to 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers were cut. There was fracture of both bones and bones were exposed. Wound bandaged and limb elevated. Injury was grievous in nature and caused by sharp weapon within the probable duration of 24 hours. He accordingly issued the MLC Ext. PW-6/B which bears his signature which is in his hand. He stated that injury was caused by severe force as it had broken both bones of forearm. 23. In his cross-examination, PW-6 stated that he was informed by the police, about the assault on the injured. He stated that injured told him about the alleged history of assault whereby some Bhawani Singh of Village Lulani, attacked him with chopping knife. He further stated that injured did not tell him that he had raised his arm to protect his neck from the assault with chopping knife. He stated that he examined the injured and final opinion was given by him that injury was grievous in nature. This opinion regarding injury was given by him on 10.07.2008 after 4:00 P.M. He stated that he did not remember whether the injured was brought to him during night for treatment or not. He stated that he examined the injured and final opinion was given by him that injury was grievous in nature. This opinion regarding injury was given by him on 10.07.2008 after 4:00 P.M. He stated that he did not remember whether the injured was brought to him during night for treatment or not. He stated that in case injured Pashupati Nath would have come to the Baijnath hospital and treated by him during the night intervening on 10/11.07.2008, in that event, the patient must have the prescription slip with him and he would have referred the injured abovesaid. He admitted that if injured had come to hospital he would have given him first aid and then referred to him to higher institute where facilities for treating such cases were available. He stated that there was no injury on the neck and injury on the neck could have been dangerous to life. He stated that he did not remember when he examined the injured. The injury was not already bandaged. He denied the suggestion that he had referred the injured to Tanda hospital before his examination. 24. Inspector Mangat Ram, was examined, as PW-7. He stated that during the year 2008 he was posted as SHO in P.S. Baijnath. After investigation he had prepared the challan and filed the same it before the Court. 25. Sh. Harish Chander, was examined, as PW-9, who has stated that his surname is Manglesh and his younger brother is Manjit Manglesh, who is Ayurvedic doctor. He stated that he knew the accused present in the Court. He has stated that he was working as Supervisor- cum-store keeper in Subhash Group of Companies since 2008 at Lunani. He knew Pashupati Nath (PW-8), who had worked in the same project with Nishant Goldi contractor. In the month of July 2008, Pashupati Nath came to his house in village Deyol at about 10: 00 P.M. He was having injury on his left arm and it was bleeding. He told him that he had a fall. He had not disclosed name of any person as assailant. 26. At his stage, learned Public Prosecutor requested the Court below to declare PW-9 as a hostile witness and sought permission to cross-examine the witness. 27. In the cross-examination, PW-9 denied the suggestion that Pashupati Nath had told him that Bhawani Singh had caused the injuries to him with chopper of cutting chicken. 26. At his stage, learned Public Prosecutor requested the Court below to declare PW-9 as a hostile witness and sought permission to cross-examine the witness. 27. In the cross-examination, PW-9 denied the suggestion that Pashupati Nath had told him that Bhawani Singh had caused the injuries to him with chopper of cutting chicken. He stated that he did not know Busheri Ram and was not knowing too much about accused before he used to work at Lunani in Lunni project. He has stated that he has heard portion ‘A to A’ of statement mark PW-9/A recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which he did not give to the police. He specifically denied that Pashupati Nath had disclosed the name of assailant as Bhawani Singh to him. 28. Sh. Amit Chawla was examined as PW-10. He stated that he had worked as Supervisor in 2008 in Hydel Project Lunni No.1 at Lunani. PW-8 Pashupati Nath and others had worked in the project under him. He used to reside in Paprola township, Districrt Kangra, H.P and knew the accused present in the Court. He stated that on 09.07.2008 at about 10/11 P.M. Harish Manglesh, who had worked as Supervisor in the company telephonically informed that Pashupati had come to his house with injury on his left arm with the allegation that respondent/accused present in the Court had caused that injury with chopping knife. He further stated that he alongwith Bali Nath and Arun, at once, rushed to the house of Harish in Village Deyol in a van and found Pashupati Nath in an injured condition. PW-8 Pashupati Nath also told him that Bhawani Singh caused that injury to him with chopping knife, when he refused to provide the cement. He also stated that he alongwith Bali Nath and Arun took Pashupati Nath to Baijnath hospital for prompt medical aid. Doctor examined him, but did not provide him medical aid, then he was taken to Palampur hospital, where also he was not provided medical aid and then they took him to Tanda hospital and from there he was referred to DMC Ludhiana. 29. Sh. Manoj Kumar Sahoo, was examined as PW-11. He stated that he was labourer in Subhash Group of Company in Village Dharer, Tehsil Baijnath. He further stated that police came to his room and had got his signatures on a paper. He signed Ext. PW-2/A in his room. 29. Sh. Manoj Kumar Sahoo, was examined as PW-11. He stated that he was labourer in Subhash Group of Company in Village Dharer, Tehsil Baijnath. He further stated that police came to his room and had got his signatures on a paper. He signed Ext. PW-2/A in his room. His signature is in red encircle at point ‘A’. He further stated that Ext. PW-2/B was not prepared in his presence. 30. In his cross-examination, PW-11 specifically admitted that above mentioned exhibits were not written in his presence. However, these documents were brought by the police to his room and obtained his signatures. He did not know what was written in those papers. He stated that he had signed those papers under the pressure of the police. 31. SI Rajinder Paul was examined as PW-12, who has stated that during the year, 2008 he was posted as I.O. in Police Station Baijnath. On 10.07.2008, 4-5 persons arrived in a Alto Car No. HP-53-5288 just outside the Police Station and one of the occupants was in an injured condition whose name was Pashupati Nath Gupta. He recorded the statement of injured while sitting in vehicle which is Ext. PW-8/A. Thereafter, he handed over the said statement to MHC who registered the FIR Ext. PW-12/A, which is signed by him. He also made an endorsement Ext. PW-12/B on statement Ext. PW-8/A. Thereafter, he proceeded to the spot alongwith other police officials and other occupants of vehicle, except injured. He prepared spot map Ext. PW- 12/C and also collected blood stained earth and gravel (Bajri), sealed the same with seal ‘K’ and took into possession vide memo Ext. PW-2/A in presence of PWs Manoj Kumar and Jeet Kumar. He further stated that he also obtained seal impression on a piece of cloth which is Ext. PW-12/D. He also got the spot photographs. On 14.07.2008, disclosure statement of accused Ext. PW-3/A was recorded in presence of PWs Dalip Chand and Megh Nath and thereafter accused led police party and witnesses to the spot and got recovered Iron Tokka (cleaver). He also stated that he prepared sketch map of Iron Tokka in presence of witnesses which is Ext. PW-2/B and during investigation on 15.07.2008 accused present in Court produced his clothes i.e. Pant & Shirt which were sealed and took into possession vide memo Ext. He also stated that he prepared sketch map of Iron Tokka in presence of witnesses which is Ext. PW-2/B and during investigation on 15.07.2008 accused present in Court produced his clothes i.e. Pant & Shirt which were sealed and took into possession vide memo Ext. PW-2/D. He has stated that he had also moved an application Ext. PW-6/A to Medical Officer Baijnath and obtained MLC of injured. He stated that he had also correctly recorded the statement of Harish Manglesh Ext. PW-12/J earlier marked PW-9/A. He had also deposited case property with MHC from time to time. 32. On his cross-examination, PW-12 has stated that Village Lulani is at a distance of about 9 Kms from Baijnath and both places are linked by road and it takes about half an hour to reach Police Station Baijnath from Village Lulani in vehicle. He stated that information was received in the Police Station at about 3:40 P.M. on 10.07.2008. He admitted that even in statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the reason for delay in lodging, the FIR has not come. He admitted that FIR was received by Magistrate on 10.07.2008 at 5:50 P.M. He further stated that he did not collect blood sample from the person of injured and did not file an application to Medical Officer in this regard. He denied that no Iron Tokka Ext. P-6 was recovered at the instance of accused vide memos Ext. PW-3/A and Ext. PW-2/E. 33. Sh. Bali Nath Gupta, was examined as PW-13. He stated that in the year 2008, he was working in Luni project with contractor Nishant @ Goldi. Pashupati Nath Gupta is his father who was also working as Foreman in the project. He alongwith Arun Gupta was residing with his father in a shed in Village Lulani and he knew Bhawani @ Bhagwan Dass who was residing near their shed and was running a shop of grocery and was also selling chicken. On 09.07.2008 at about 10 P.M., after taking meal he (PW-13), Arun and his father went to sleep in the shed. After about 10/15 minutes, Bhawani @ Bhagwan Dass called his father ‘Gupta-Gupta’ on which his father went out side after opening door enquired from him what is the matter. On 09.07.2008 at about 10 P.M., after taking meal he (PW-13), Arun and his father went to sleep in the shed. After about 10/15 minutes, Bhawani @ Bhagwan Dass called his father ‘Gupta-Gupta’ on which his father went out side after opening door enquired from him what is the matter. On this, Bhawani asked his father to provide 3-4 bags of cement of company to which his father refused and both of them went towards shop of Bhawani Singh. Thereafter, Bhawani @ Bhagwan Dass took cleaver from shop and gave blow on the head of his father which was stopped by his father by raising hand. Cleaver hit left hand of his father, as a result of which, injuries were inflicted and blood started oozing out. On that , he and Arun ran towards that side but in the mean time, Bhawani @ Bhagwn Dass fled away. PW-13 further stated that he and Arun went to Supervisor for bringing vehicle as his father was having injuries over his head. After arranging vehicle, they took his father to Baijnath hospital for treatment from where he was taken to Palampur and then to Tanda. On the next day, his father was referred for plastic surgery. Matter was reported next day to the police as during night they remained busy in giving medical assistance to his father. 34. In the cross-examination, PW-13 stated that he alongwith his father and Arun Gupta had reached Sub Divisional hospital Baijnath on 09.07.2008 itself. He further stated that police had not come to the hospital at that time. They had been working for last six months prior to 09.07.2008 in Hydro Electric Project at Luni. He admitted that Baijnath is situated at a distance of 7 - 7 ½ k.m. from Luni Project. He has stated that police station Baijnath is just near Baijnath Government Hospital. He admitted the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the police after a gap of more than two months, self stated that it was recorded when he returned from Bihar. He also stated that police had not met him in CMC Ludhiana. There was no dispute between respondent/accused and his father regarding money. He admitted that his father was habitual drunkard. He denied that his father was drunk in the evening of 09.07.2008 and he also denied that his father used to pick-up quarrels after consuming alcohol. He also stated that police had not met him in CMC Ludhiana. There was no dispute between respondent/accused and his father regarding money. He admitted that his father was habitual drunkard. He denied that his father was drunk in the evening of 09.07.2008 and he also denied that his father used to pick-up quarrels after consuming alcohol. He denied that police had found blood stains inside the shop, self stated that blood was found just out-side the gate. 35. PW Arun Gupta was given up as being repetitive in nature. Thereafter, PW Shalesh was also given up on the ground that he was won over by the accused. 36. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to refer to the legal proposition on the issue of scope of interference in the appeal of acquittal as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in following decisions. 37. In case Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 433 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- 23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: (SCC pp.163-64, para 38-41) “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC(Cri)31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.482-83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words:(Chandrappa case7, SCC p.432,para 42) ‘42. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words:(Chandrappa case7, SCC p.432,para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 puts no limitation restriction on condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”,“good and sufficient grounds” “very strong circumstances ”,“distorted conclusions”,“glaring mistakes”,etc. Are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.’ ” 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/ omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 38. In the case of Ballu @ Bal Ram @ Balmukund and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 (4) SCALE 513 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. In the case of Ballu @ Bal Ram @ Balmukund and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 (4) SCALE 513 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warrated Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: “13.In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P.(2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded." 14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same.” 39. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that scope of interference in an appeal of acquittal is very limited and only in those cases where the judgment is perverse and the evidence has not been appreciated in the proper perspective, the Appellate Court can interfere in the case of acquittal. 40. Now adverting to the facts and the merits of the case. 40. Now adverting to the facts and the merits of the case. The prosecution has failed to establish its case on various grounds. PW-8 Pashupati Nath Gupta is the victim and PW-13 Bali Nath Gupta is his son. PW-8 has stated that on 09.06.2008, he alongwith other fellows were sleeping in the shed and at about 9:30/10 P.M., he was called by the accused by calling him Gupta Ji come out. When he came out from the shed, on that, the respondent demanded cement from him to which he refused to provide cement. When he refused, the accused went to his shop and brought one chopping knife (Tokka) from his shop and attacked him with an intention to do away with his life. He raised his left arm in defence to save his neck and the chopping knife hit on his wrist of left hand and his wrist was cut. He stated that he ran towards Village Deval because Harish Supervisor was residing there. He told each and everything to Harish. Thereafter, Harish called Supervisor Amit Chawla on telephone. Alongwith Amit, Bali Nath, Shalesh and Arun also came in the house of Harish. Thereafter, he was taken by Amit and others to Baijnath hospital. To the contrary, is the statement of PW-13, Bali Nath Gupta, who is the son of victim/Pashupati Nath Gupta which shows that he has a different version to tell. PW-13 stated that he alongwith Arun Gupta was residing with his father (Pashupati Nath Gupta) in a shed in Village Lulani. On 09.07.2008 at about 10:00 P.M. after taking meal, he alongwith Arun and his father went to sleep in a shed and after about 10-15 minutes, Bhawani @ Bhagwan Dass called his father ‘Gupta-Gupta’’, on which his father went outside and after opening the door, he enquired him what is the matter about. Bhawani asked his father to provide 3-4 bags of cement of the company of which his father refused and after that both of them went to the shop of Bhawani Singh, where Bhawani Singh took a cleaver from the shop and gave blow on the head of his father which was stopped by his father by raising hand. Cleaver hit left hand of his father, as a result of which, injuries inflicted and blood started oozing out. Cleaver hit left hand of his father, as a result of which, injuries inflicted and blood started oozing out. He also stated that, thereafter, he and Arun ran towards that side but in the mean time, Bhawani @ Bhagwan Dass fled away. He and Arun went to Supervisor for bringing vehicle as his father was having injuries over his head. Then, they arranged vehicle and took his father to Baijnath hospital. PW-13, who is the son of PW-8 has deposed contrary to the statement of PW-8. 41. From perusal of the statement of PW-8, it will be clear that he has stated that after the occurrence he went to the house of Harish and thereafter Harish called Supervisor Amit Chawla on telephone. Alongwith Amit, Bali Nath, Salesh and Arun also came in the house of Harish. Two different versions have been deposed by the father and the son which creates doubt in the story as being projected by the prosecution. In his statement PW-8 says that alongwith Amit, Bali Nath, Salesh and Arun also came in the house of Harish. However, such statement has been contradicted by his son PW-13 because he nowhere states that he went to the house of Harish. He states that he and Arun went to Supervisor for bringing vehicle as his father was having injuries over his head. He did not name Amit Chawla, Harish and Shalesh. PW-8 has stated that he was taken by Amit and others to Baijnath hospital. On the contrary, PW-13 stated that he and Arun arranged vehicle and took his father to Baijnath hospital. This is also material contradiction in the statements of the father and the son. In his cross- examination PW-13 has stated that he alongwith his father and Arun Gupta reached in Sub Divisional Hospital Baijnath on 09.07.2008 itself. He has not stated about Harish and Amit. On the contrary, PW-8 has stated that Amit and others accompanied him to the hospital. Therefore, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses PW-8 and PW-13, who are father and son. It creates serious doubt on the story as projected by the prosecution. 42. From the perusal of statement of Jeet Ram (PW-2), it is clear that he has deposed that police brought a chopping knife from their vehicle and went to the shop of the accused and they performed the proceedings there. It creates serious doubt on the story as projected by the prosecution. 42. From the perusal of statement of Jeet Ram (PW-2), it is clear that he has deposed that police brought a chopping knife from their vehicle and went to the shop of the accused and they performed the proceedings there. He stated that the chopping knife was not recovered from the shop in his presence. Though, it can not be a sole ground to disbelieve the version of the prosecution, however, in the absence of any independent corroboration by any witness on record, an adverse inference certainly has to be drawn against the prosecution. 43. The prosecution ought to have led concrete evidence in order to link accused person with the alleged offence as having been committed under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC . PW-2 has specifically admitted in his cross- examination that blood was lifted from the place where chicken used to be cut. He further admitted that blood was also lifted by the police from the backside of the shed. This admission on the part of PW-2 is material and it creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. PW-3 has stated in his examination-in-chief that accused did not disclose anything to the police in his presence and statement of disclosure of the accused was already written by the police. He further stated that the police got signed the same. He has stated that he is not an eye witness to the incident. In his cross- examination, PW-3 has admitted that Bhagwan Dass did not give any disclosure statement in his presence about the recovery of the chopping knife. He has admitted that police had already written the disclosure statement themselves on their own and they asked him to sign it and he had signed over the same under the pressure of police. It creates serious doubt in the prosecution story especially the disclosure statement, as placed on record, in order to link the respondent with the alleged offence. 44. PW-6. Dr. Jyotinder Kaul has stated in his statement that injured told him the alleged history of assault that Bhawani Singh had attacked him. This statement of PW-6 is contrary to the statement of PW-8 who has stated that Amit Chawla had disclosed the name of the accused to the Medical Officer. 44. PW-6. Dr. Jyotinder Kaul has stated in his statement that injured told him the alleged history of assault that Bhawani Singh had attacked him. This statement of PW-6 is contrary to the statement of PW-8 who has stated that Amit Chawla had disclosed the name of the accused to the Medical Officer. Therefore, the averments of PW-8 and PW-6 are contrary to each other and an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case and, moreso, it is a material contradiction in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. 45. One material inconsistency and contradiction in the statement of PW-8 and PW-13 is that in the cross- examination PW-8 has denied that he used to remain intoxicated 24 hours. However, PW-13, his own son, has admitted that his father is habitual of drinks. 46. The star witness of the prosecution PW-9 Harish Chander has demolished the case of the prosecution. He stated that in the month of July 2008, Pashupati Nath came to his house in Village Deval at about 10:00 p.m. and he had injury on his left arm. PW-8 told him that he had a fall and further stated that he (PW-8) had not disclosed the name of a person as assailant. PW-8 has categorically stated in his statement that he was assaulted by the respondent and he escaped and ran towards Deval because Harish Supervisor used to reside there. PW-8 further stated that he went to the house of Harish and he told each and everything about the occurrence to Harish and thereafter, Harish called Amit Chawla, then Bali Nath, Shalesh and Arun also came in the house of Harish. This averment of PW-8 is contrary to the statement of PW-9. PW-9, has stated that Pashupati Nath had not disclosed any name as assailant. This statement of PW-9 is totally contrary to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution could not substantiate the case as put forward for the charges under Sections 307 and 326 IPC against the respondent/accused. PW-9 has categorically denied that Pashupati Nath had disclosed the name of assailant as Bhawani Singh to him. Even, PW-10 Amit Chawla has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-9 has categorically denied that Pashupati Nath had disclosed the name of assailant as Bhawani Singh to him. Even, PW-10 Amit Chawla has not supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that Harish Manglesh telephonically informed that Pashupati Nath has come to his house with injury on his left arm and that accused present in the Court had caused an injury to him with a chopping knife. He stated that he alongwith Bali Nath and Arun rushed to the house of Harish. He did not name Shalesh as has been stated by PW-8 in his statement. So, it also creates doubt in the story of the prosecution. Surprisingly, though PW-10 was examined, however, the defence was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine him. Therefore, on that account, his statement cannot be read. 47. Even PW-11 has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that police came to his room and got his signatures on a paper. He signed Ext. PW-2/A in his room on which his signatures are in red encircle at point A. He has further stated that parcels were not sealed in his presence. He has also stated that Ext. PW-2/E was also not prepared in his presence. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he signed these papers under the pressure of the police. 48. From perusal of the statements of witnesses of the prosecution, it is clear that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements, as a result of which, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondent for the alleged offences. 49. Even the FSL report, Ext. PX shows that no blood was detected on Ext. PW-4/A i.e. Shirt and Ext. PW- 4/B i.e. Pant. PW-8 has stated in his statement that a large amount of blood oozed out from his wound and his clothes were drenched with blood. He has stated that those clothes were kept by him at his home till today i.e. on the day of deposition. It also creates doubt on the prosecution story, as it is unbelievable that in case the clothes were drenched with blood, why those were not handed over to the police by the victim/complainant. 50. That apart, the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR in the present case. It also creates doubt on the prosecution story, as it is unbelievable that in case the clothes were drenched with blood, why those were not handed over to the police by the victim/complainant. 50. That apart, the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR in the present case. As per the version of PW-8, the alleged injuries were given to him at about 9:30/10 P.M. on 09.07.2008, then what prevented the complainant to lodge the FIR at Police Station Baijnath, which is hardly at a distance of 7-7 ½ k.m. from Luni project on that very night, is not forth coming. Admittedly, the information was received at the Police Station at 3:40 P.M. on 10.07.2008, and FIR was registered. 51. In the present case, statements of PW-8 and his son PW-13 do not align with each other which shatters the case of the prosecution. Since the statements of witnesses are inconsistent to each other, therefore, they do not inspire confidence and further do not link the present respondent to the alleged offence for which he was charged. 52. The learned Court below after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record has rightly acquitted the present respondent. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (III), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. on 01.12.2014, As a result, the present appeal fails and it is dismissed. 53. The bails bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are discharged. 54. Records be sent down.