IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Leave to Government Appeal No. 84/2009 With Government Appeal No. 70 of 2009 With (Delay Condonation Application No.1114/2009) State of Uttarakhand …Applicant/Appellant Versus Suryabeer Saini & another …Respondents Dated: October 28, 2009 Sri Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State/appellant Coram: Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard learned A.G.A. for the applicant/appellant on Delay Condonation Application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. The grounds stated in the affidavit for condoning the delay in filing the Government Appeal before the Court appear to be genuine. Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Also heard on the leave to appeal application. This leave to appeal application preferred by the State-appellant under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.5.2009 passed by Third FTC/Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar in S.T. No.360 of 2004, State Vs. Suryaveer Saini & another, under Sections 323/324/325/307/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) all r/w Section 34 of the IPC and one punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, thereby acquitting the accused persons from the charges levelled against them. It appears to us from a perusal of the impugned judgment that the eyewitnesses in this case have turned hostile. These witnesses have not supported the prosecution case on any point. Hostility of the eyewitnesses makes the genesis of the prosecution case absolutely doubtful. Further, the injured witness Bala Devi was firstly discharged by the prosecution and thereafter she was produced before the court after a lapse of about seven months. This situation makes also the prosecution case doubtful and gives an impression that the prosecution, in order to give colour to its case, has thereafter produced the injured witness. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below thereby acquitting the respondents. The manner in which the incident has taken place as alleged by the prosecution appears to be completely doubtful. The case also appears to be doubtful for the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as none of the prosecution witnesses has also supported the case of the charges. We are of the view that the trial court has rightly assessed the evidence and has committed no error in the same. The judgment and order passed by the trial court acquitting the accused persons/respondents needs no interference. Accordingly, the special leave to appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand is rejected. Consequently, the appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons also stands dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 28.10.2009 Rdang