IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No. 1027 of 2008 IN Government Appeal No. 335 of 2008 and Leave to Government Appeal No. 106 of 2008 State of Uttarakhand … Applicant/ Appellant Vs Kushal Pal & others … Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri H.C. Pujari, learned A.G.A. for the applicant-appellant/State of Uttarakhand on the delay condonation application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. 2. We find sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the government appeal. 3. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the government appeal is hereby condoned. 4. This appeal under Section 378 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant/State of Uttarakhand against the judgment and order dated 06.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/1st F.T.C., Haridwar in Session Trial No. 124 of 2000, under Sections 148, 302/149, 364-A of I.P.C. thereby acquitting the accused/respondents for the charges levelled against them. 5. Heard Sri H.C. Pujari, learned A.G.A. for the State/appellant and Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for 2 the respondent Nos. 1 and 5, namely, Kaushal Pal and Mahipal respectively on leave to appeal and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below. 6. After having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. However, the evidence adduced before the trial court could not connect the respondents with the commission of crime of murder and kidnapping of the deceased Ashok @ Kuttu. The trial court assessed the entire evidence available on record and thereafter came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The trial court has also not committed any illegality in assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is neither the case of misleading of the evidence nor the case where the evidence has been ignored by the trial Judge. We are thus of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference. 7. Accordingly, the leave to government appeal is rejected. Consequently, the appeal against acquittal of the respondents, namely, Kushal Pal, Samay Singh, Smt. Kasturi, Vijay Pal and Mahipal, is dismissed. (B.S. Verma, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 08.09.2009 RCP/ASWAL