Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 198 of 2015 Reserved on: 21.05.2025 Decided on: 30.05.2025 _____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant. Versus Rakesh @ Rinku & others ……Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. _____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. J.S. Guleria and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocates General. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Varun Chauhan and Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocates. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, Camp at Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 338 of 2013, whereby the accused persons (respondents herein) were acquitted under Sections 341, 323, 302 and 506 of the Indian 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 2 Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under: 2(a). On 06.04.2012, at Bir Road, an altercation took place between one Sonu Barwal and the accused persons when he was there on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-29A-3005. Thereafter, Sonu Barwal went to the shop of one Narender @ Mangu, where Daler Singh, Narender and Vinod were sitting. Subsequently, accused persons, i.e., Mast Ram, Vijay and Rakesh @ Rinku came in a tractor and accused Ramesh Kumar came on the spot on a motorcycle. Accused Ramesh came inside the shop and dragged Sonu Barwal out of the shop and started thrashing him on the road. In the interregnum, Anil Kumar, Daler Singh and Narender came on the road for rescuing him. Accused Rakesh Kumar gave a blow of danda to Anil Kumar and accused Vijay gave a blow of shovel on his head due to which Anil Kumar fell on the road. As many people gathered on the spot, therefore, the accused persons fled away from the spot. Injured-Anil Kumar was immediately rushed to Civil Hospital, Jogindernagar, where he was given first aid and further referred to Rajinder Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda at Kangra, wherefrom he was referred to Chandigarh, where he died. The matter was reported to the police Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 3 and Daler Singh (complainant) got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C.. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined twenty witnesses. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 12.12.2014 acquitted all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 302 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon surmises and conjectures, thus liable to set-aside. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right and true perspective, as such the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside by allowing the instant appeal and the accused persons be convicted. 6. Conversely, the learned Senior Counsel for the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 4 respondents/accused persons contended that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law in its right and true perspective. He has further contended that the learned Trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment, which does not require any interference, thus the instant appeal, which is devoid of any merit, be dismissed. 7. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/accused persons and carefully examined the entire records. 8. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 5 further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Further, if two reasonable views 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. 9. The scope of power of appellate court in case of appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Muralidhar alias Gidda & another vs. State of Karnatka reported in (2014)5 SCC 730, which read as under: "10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup[1], highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said, "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years. 11. 11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed, "7...........the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. 12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu[3], Madan Mohan Singh[4], Atley[5] , Aher Raja Khima[6], Balbir Singh[7], M.G. Agarwal[8], Noor Khan[9], Khedu Mohton[10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade[11], Lekha Yadav[12], Khem Karan[13], Bishan Singh[14], Umedbhai Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 6 Jadavbhai[15], K. Gopal Reddy[16], Tota Singh[17], Ram Kumar[18], Madan Lal[19], Sambasivan[20], Bhagwan Singh[21], Harijana Thirupala[22], C. Antony[23], K. Gopalakrishna[24], Sanjay Thakran[25] and Chandrappa[26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re- appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & another, (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 471, observed as under: Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 7 “31. The circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by this Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court may be summarized as follows: 31.1. Ordinarily, this Court is cautious in interfering with an order of acquittal, especially when the order of acquittal has been confirmed up to the High Court. It is only in rarest of rare cases, where the High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the same may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. [State of U.P. v. Sahai (1982) 1 SCC 352] Such fetters on the right to entertain an appeal are prompted by the reluctance to expose a person, who has been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge, to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the case, even though it is held by a superior court. [Arunchalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979) 2 SCC 297] An appeal cannot be entertained against an order of acquittal which has, after recording valid and weighty reasons, has arrived at an unassailable, logical conclusion which justifies acquittal. [State of Haryana vs. Lakhbir 1991 Supp (1) SCC 35 31.2. However, this Court has on certain occasions, set aside the order of acquittal passed by a High Court. The circumstances under which this Court may entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of conviction, may be summarized as follows: 31.2.1. Where the approach or reasoning of the High Court is perverse; (a) Where incontrovertible evidence has been rejected by the High Court based on suspicion and surmises, which are rather unrealistic. [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh (1983) 1 SCC 393] For example, where direct, unanimous accounts of the eyewitnesses, were discounted without cogent reasoning. [State of U.P. vs. Shanker 1980 Supp SCC 489] (b) Where the intrinsic merits of the testimony of relatives, living in the same house as the victim, were discounted on the ground that they were “interested” witnesses. [State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh (1980) (c) Where testimony of witnesses had been disbelieved by the High Court, on an unrealistic conjecture of personal motive on the part of witnesses to implicate the accused, when in fact, the witnesses had no axe to grind in the said matter. [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh (1983) 1 SCC 393] (d) Where dying declaration of the deceased victim was rejected by the High Court on an irrelevant ground that they did not explain the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 8 injury found on one of the persons present at the site of occurrence of the crime. [Arunachalam vs. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979) 2 SCC 297] (e) Where the High Court applied an unrealistic standard of “implicit proof” rather than that of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” and therefore evaluated the evidence in a flawed manner. [State of U.P. v. Ranjha Ram (1986) 4 SCC 99] (f) Where the High Court rejected circumstantial evidence, based on an exaggerated and capricious theory, which were beyond the plea of the accused; [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981) 3 SCC 610] (g) Where the High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that he had no adequate motive to commit the offence, although, in the said case, there was strong direct evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, thereby making it necessary on the part of the prosecution to establish “motive”. [State of A.P. v. Bogam Chandraiah (1990) 1 SCC 445] 31.2.2. Where acquittal would result is gross miscarriage of justice; (a) Where the findings of the High Court, disconnecting the accused persons with the crime, were based on a perfunctory consideration of evidence, [State of U.P. v. Pheru Singh 1989 Supp (1) SCC] or based on extenuating circumstances which were purely based in imagination and fantasy [State of U.P. v. Pussu (1983) 3 SCC 502] (b) Where the accused had been acquitted on ground of delay in conducting trial, which delay was attributable not to the tardiness or indifference of the prosecuting agencies, but to the conduct of the accused himself; or where accused had been acquitted on ground of delay in conducting trial relating to an offence which is not of a trivial nature. [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981) 3 SCC 610]” 11. In H.D. Sundara & others vs. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 Supreme Court Cases 581, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the appellate court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after reappreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant portion of the above judgment is Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 9 as under: “8. In this appeal, were are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be summarized as follows: 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 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. 9. Normally, when an appellate court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the appellate court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The appellate court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the appellate court must first decide whether the trial court’s view was a possible view. The appellate court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after reappreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the appellate court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the appellate court must see whether the view taken by the trial court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 10 taken by the trial court is a possible view, the appellate court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.” 12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. Further, if two views were possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, merely, because the Appellate Court could have arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court. 13. Now, reverting back to the facts of the case on hand. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as twenty witnesses, however, its case mainly rests upon the statements of PW-15 Sonu Barwal, PW-16 Narender, PW-18 Daler Singh and PW-8 Dr. Jayant Kumar. 14. PW-15 Sonu Bharwal deposed that on 06.04.2012 he was sitting at the shop of Narender @ Manju, as he had gone there to meet his friend Vickey on his motorcycle. He further deposed that when he was returning back, his another friend met him and both of them had stopped motorcycles and having words with each other. In the interregnum a tractor, which was being Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 11 driven by accused Rinku came there and accused Mast Ram was also on the tractor. Accused Rinku blew horn and gave him signal to stop. Accused Rinku and Mast Ram started abusing him and they exchanged hot words. Thereafter, he came to Beerh road and returned back to the shop of Narender where Anil and Daler were sitting. He narrated to them that he had exchanged hot words with Rinku and Mast Ram. After ten minutes a motorcyclist, i.e. Ramesh, who was followed by a tractor, whereupon accused Mast Ram, Rinku and Vijay were sitting came there. Accused Ramesh caught hold of him and dragged him out of the shop and started giving him fist blows on his face and other parts of the body. Anil, Daler and Narender came out of the shop to save him, but Rinku gave a danda blow, which landed on the head of Anil and Vijay gave blow of belcha which also struck on the head of Anil, consequently Anil fell down and all the accused persons gave fist and kick blows for 3-4 minutes. This witness also deposed that blood from the head injury of Anil oozed and fell on the road and people started gathering on the spot, therefore, the accused persons fled away from the spot. He alongwith Daler and Narender shifted Anil to hospital at Jogindernagar. As per this witness, Anil fell unconscious on the spot and he had become unconscious when he received the first blow given by accused Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 12 Rinku and subsequently due to blow of belcha given by accused Vijay his condition deteriorated. Anil was referred from Jogindernagar hospital to Medical College Tanda where he was given First Aid and further referred to PGI, Chandigiarh. On the next day, on his admission in PGI, Anil expired due to head injury and police was informed by Daler Singh, whereupon FIR was registered. 16. PW-16 Narender deposed that he used to run a Mobile repair shop at Beerh Road. On 06.04.2012 around 06:06:15 p.m. Daler and Anil Kumar were sitting in his shop. He further deposed that Sonu came there and divulged that he had exchanged hot words with accused Mast Ram. Subsequently in a tractor, which was being driven by accused Rinku, accused Mast Ram and Vijay came there and accused Ramesh came on the motorcycle. Accused Ramesh alighted from the motorcycle and caught hold of Sonu and dragged him towards the road and he started thrashing him with fist and kick blows, which hit on his eye. Thereafter Anil and Daler tried to intervene to save Sonu, but accused Rakesh gave a danda blow on the head of Anil and accused Vijay gave a blow of belcha on his head as a result Anil fell down. Blood from the wounds of Anil fell on the road and he fell unconscious on the spot. They shifted him to C.H. Jogindernagar, wherefrom he was Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 13 referred to Tanda Medical College and then to PGI, Chandigarh, where he expired due to the injuries sustained by him. As per this witness, accused persons fled away from the spot when Anil became unconscious. The other accused persons gave fist and kick blows to all the injured and they fled away from the spot on their vehicles. 17. PW-18 Daler Singh deposed that on 06.04.2012, around 06:30 p.m., at Beerh road Mast Ram and his sons came in their vehicles and gave beatings to Sonu. Accused Rinku gave beatings to Sonu with his hands and when Sonu fell down Anil Kumar (deceased) tried to pick him, but accused Rinku gave a danda blow on the head of Anil and accused Vijay gave a belcha blow. As per this witness the wounds of Anil started bleeding and blood fell on the road, but it did not smear his clothes. He further deposed that accused Rinku then pounched upon him and gave a danda blow to him and other accused also gave beatings with their hands. He also deposed that when he was hit by a danda on his nose, he started bleeding and became half-unconscious and his vision became blur, therefore, he could not see anything for some time. Accused Mast Ram and his sons (co-accused) gave beatings badly to Anil Kumar with their hands, kick blows and dandas. When he saw himself bleeding profusely, he raised alarm, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 14 then accused persons threatened to eliminate them and fled away from the spot. Subsequently, he and Sonu took Anil Kumar to C.H. Jogindernagar and FIR was lodged. He was medically examined at the hospital and he narrated to the doctor about his injuries. As per this witness, Anil was referred to Medical Hospital Tanda, but he did not accompany him. He deposed that Anil Kumar, after reaching PGI, Chandigarh, expired. 18. PW-8 Dr. Jayant Kumar, who medically examined the deceased, deposed that there was subdural haemorrhage over left cerebral haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhare over right cerebral hemisphere and cause of death was cranio-cerebral damage, as a result of blunt trauma to head and injury No. 1 was grievous and dangerous to life. On 18.04.2012, after perusing the weapon of offence, he had given his opinion that the injury to the head of deceased was possible with belcha and this injury could be a cause of death. He issued his opinion, Ex. PW-8/C. 19. We have closely scrutinized the entire evidence and after close scrutiny thereof we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 20. The perusal of the evidence demonstrates that complainant-Daler Singh got his statement recorded under Section Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 15 154 Cr.P.C. on 06.04.2012 in the hospital and at that time Sonu Barwal (PW-15) was also present there. Surprisingly, complainant- Daler Singh stated before the police that only three accused persons had come on the spot and danda blow was given to the deceased by accused Rakesh. He did not state that accused Vijay was also present on the spot and he had given blow of shovel to the deceased. 21. The testimony of PW-8 Dr. Jayant Kumar shows that the deceased suffered head injury caused due to blow of shovel. The death of deceased was caused due to shovel injury, but the complainant (PW-18) did not state that accused Vijay came on the spot with shovel and he struck a blow of shovel on the head of the deceased. No supplementary statement of PW-18 was recorded for showing that inadvertently the name of accused Vijay Kumar was not mentioned in his statement, Ex. PW-18/A. The statement of Daler Singh was recorded on 07.04.2012 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but even in this statement he did not mention the name of accused Vijay to be present at the spot of occurrence with shovel. Moreover, recovery of shovel has not been proved by the prosecution, as the independent witness of the recovery of the shovel, i.e., Shri Surjeet Singh, was not examined by the prosecution for some inexplicable reasons. Disclosure statement Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 16 was made in the police station in presence of Shri Dhani Ram, an independent witness, however, said Dhani Ram again was not examined by the prosecution for proving the alleged disclosure statement of accused Vijay. Thus, the recovery of weapon of offence, in the instant case, has not been proved. 22. It has come in the testimonies of PWs 15, 16 and 18 that there were other shopkeepers at the spot, who rushed to the spot at the time of the occurrence, but no independent witness of the spot was associated in the investigation by the police. Noticeably, PWs 15, 16 and 18 are closely related to each other, thus they are interested witnesses, as the deceased was their relative. 23. PW-8 Dr. Jayant Kumar, in his deposition clearly deposed that Daler Singh and Anil Kumar were found inebriated at the time of their medical examination, thus the possibility cannot be ruled out that Anil Kumar had fallen after consuming liquor adjoining the road near the shop of Narender. 24. Conversely, the accused persons examined DW-1 Shri Parshotam Singh, who took Daler Singh, Anil and Mangu to C.H. Jogindernagar. This witness deposed that Daler told the Medical Officer that they had suffered injury in a road side accident and there is a mention of RTA (Road side Traffic Accident) in MLC, Ex. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 17 PW-8/A, however, the same was subsequently cut. Thus, the prosecution has failed to connect that accused Vijay was present on the spot with shovel. None of the witnesses deposed that there were stains of blood on the shovel, which could show that shovel was used for causing injury to the deceased. In fact, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the first occurrence on the road, thus no intention and motive has been established for causing the death of the deceased by the accused persons. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused Vijay Kumar gave shovel blow to the deceased, which resulted in his death. No independent witness of the spot was examined despite their availability. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had committed the murder of the deceased. 25. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. However, in view of our discussion as aforesaid, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 26. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258, that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 18 the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401, has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 28. Thus, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents; and the well reasoned judgment of acquittal needs no interference as the same is the result of appreciating the evidence correctly and to its true perspective. 29. Accordingly, the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Bail bonds are discharged. 30. In view of the provisions of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the respondents are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16792 ) 19 surety each in the like amount before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the respondent aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 30th May, 2025 (virender)