STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. SAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Sec. 419(3) of BNSS, State/petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment/order dtd. 9/8/2024, passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2021, thereby acquitting the respondent from the charges framed against him under Ss. 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:

(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. 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.