State appealed against acquittal of accused who were alleged to have fired on police and possessed arms. High Court found prosecution failed to prove case due to contradictions and lack of injuries, upholding acquittal.
Government appeal dismissed and the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused is affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Government Appeal No. 85 of 2007
State of Uttarakhand ….. State/Appellant
Versus
| 1. 2. 3. |
Soran Singh Kayum Ombeer |
….Respondents |
|---|
Mr. A.K. Sah, learned A.G.A along with Mr. Sachin Panwar and Mr. Lalit Miglani,learned Brief Holder for the State/appellant. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents/accused.
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the State Government against the judgment and order dated 11.05.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II/ F.T.C. Haridwar in Session Trial Nos. 202, 203, 204 and 205 of 2000, whereby the accused were not found guilty and accordingly acquitted under Section 307 IPC and under Sections 25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act.
Laljiiwala forest area; on searching one country-madepistol and three live cartridges of 313 bore were recovered from the possession of the accused Soran Singh, while separate two knives were recovered from the possession of the accused, namely, Kayum and Ombeer, respectively. On the basis of it recovery memo Ex. Ka-1 was prepared at the spot and on the basis of the said recovery chick FIR Ex. Ka-8 was lodged at Police Station, Haridwar on 15.08.1998 at about 4:10AM.
near Bheemgauda Road; on this information they went there, all of sudden the accused fired gunshot at the police party then the accused ran away from the spot and they were surrounded and caught; after searing them, one country-made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accusedSoran Singh, two knives separate were recovered from the possession of the accused, namely, Kayum and Ombeer.
evidence on record to convict the accused under Section 307 IPC and under Arms Act.
cartridges and one empty cartridge were not sent for FSL Test. Apart from that, as per the evidence the accused fired a gunshot on police party from a close distance, but no injury was received by any police personnel. It is very impossible that when the accused shot the fire by the country-made pistol from a close distance, but the police party did not receive any injury.
against acquittal only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. When two views being possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, then High Court is not expected to reverse acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case.
Balwant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can reverse the trial court's acquittal despite material contradictions in the prosecution story and lack of serious injury to police personnel?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and others Vs. State of MaharashtraExplained¶27
Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (1) CAR (SC) 235
State of Uttarakhand
Soran Singh
Kayum
Ombeer
R.C. Khulbe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
