LAWS(P&H)-2009-12-218

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. AMRIK SINGH

Decided On December 03, 2009
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
V/S
AMRIK SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State of Haryana has been directed against judg0ment dated 15.7.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter described as 'the trial Court') vide which the accused-respondent has been awarded acquittal in a case registered vide F.I.R.No.265 dated 30.10.1991 under Section 25 of the Arms Act,1959 at Police Station, Mujesar.

(2.) The respondent was alleged to have in his possession one spring-actuated knife without any licence or permit. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment is contradictory to the evidence on record and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent urged that the acquittal awarded by the trial Court is perfectly in order and does not call for any interference.

(3.) I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned judgment. While awarding acquittal, the trial Court referred to the evidence pertaining to the recovery of the knife which was allegedly recovered in the presence of the witnesses,but none of them was examined, who could have given the details regarding the steps which were taken at the time of alleged recovery. The place and manner of recovery were deeply under cloud. In view of the lack of material in this regard and other material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the place of arrest and place of recovery, the trial Court awarded the acquittal. A perusal of the impugned judgment, therefore, reveals that the same is well reasoned as it is settled principle of law that if the prosecution fails to establish its case against the accused person beyond a reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt has to go to such an accused. If the evidence on record is to be perused, once the recovery itself becomes doubtful because of the non-examination of the material witnesses and also for the reason that there are inherent contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the respondent beyond any shadow of doubt and in such an eventuality, the findings of the trial Court awarding acquittal to the respondent cannot be faulted with. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.