STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. ANEESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution is that on 27.09.2008 at 08:30 AM, the complainant-Raees Ahmed lodged a written complaint before Police Station- Kotwali-Roorkee, District Haridwar. He stated that his sons, namely, Saleem and Wasim had purchased two trucks (10 wheelers) a month earlier to the incident from Tata company at Dehradun; both the trucks were not yet registered; the truck which was stolen was having Chasis Nos. 426031 ERZ 010194 Engine No. 80D 6672258 Temporary No. UBPe 0669; both his sons used to sleep in the trucks; in the intervening night of 26/27.09.2008; they were talking to each other till about 02:00 AM; thereafter, both went to sleep in their respective trucks, but in the morning of 27.09.2008 at about 06:00 AM, the local people of village Rahmatpur informed the complainant that the dead-body of his son, namely, Saleem is lying near R.B. Brick Kiln and he has suffered injuries; thereafter, he along with other villagers went there, and saw the dead-body; certain unknown miscreants have murdered his son Saleem and the truck, in which he was sleeping, was also looted by them; on the basis of the complaint, Case Crime No. 415 of 2008 was registered against unknown persons, and investigation was taken up. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roorkee for offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 394 read with 34 IPC against accused Anees and Akil, and charges were framed against them. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW11, and got marked exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-16. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. By the impugned judgment, both the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 394 read with 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the State has filed this appeal.

(2.) Shri J.S. Virk, learned deputy advocate general appearing for the appellant, contends that the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous; the trial Court failed to consider the evidence and material on record; the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts; the infirmities of the prosecution have unnecessarily been highlighted by the learned trial Court; the evidence and material, as produced by the prosecution before the trial Court, sufficiently establish the commission of the offense by these two accused; and the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence and material available on record in the right perspective and has, therefore, erroneously acquitted both the accused. Hence, he pleaded that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and to convict the accused for the offense charged against them.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, disputes the same. He submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; various infirmities have been noticed by the trial Court, which affect the root of the case; the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Judge was justified in acquitting the accused; it was the prosecution which had to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts; and having failed to do so, the order of acquittal does not call for any interference.