IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No. 779 of 2010 IN Special Leave to Appeal No. 40 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2010 Rahees … Applicant/ Complainant/Appellant Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Opp. Parties Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant 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 appeal is hereby condoned. 4. This appeal under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Session Trial No. 143 of 2009, State Vs Anees & another, under Sections 302, 394 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. thereby acquitting the accused/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the charges levelled against them. 5. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant on leave to appeal and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below. 2 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 of the deceased Salim. 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 main witness, brother of the deceased, who was sleeping in another vehicle at the time of incident, has not been produced by the prosecution before the trial court for examination. The trial court has also not committed any illegality in assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is neither the case of misreading 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 special leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the appeal against acquittal of the respondents/accused, namely, Anees and Akeel is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 28.07.2009 ASWAL