IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-726-MA of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 11.02.2010 State of Haryana .... APPELLANT Versus Rakesh ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the appellant-State. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The State of Haryana has filed this application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 19.8.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the accused (respondent herein) has been acquitted in case FIR No. 165 dated 6.6.2006 registered at Police Station City Tohana under Sections 307 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. In this case, the prosecution version is based upon the statement of complainant Chandi Ram (PW.7). According to his statement, on 6.6.2006 at about 12.30 PM, he along with his son was coming back towards his house and when they reached in front of the house of one Jaswant Singh, then suddenly the accused came and stood in front of him holding a country made pistol in his hand and said that he will teach a lesson to the complainant and then fired upon him, but the complainant had Crl. Misc. No. A-726-MA of 2009 -2- narrow escape. After that, the accused again loaded the pistol to fire, but son of the complainant pelted bricks upon him and during this process, the complainant had a narrow escape from the second shot of the pistol. Thereafter, they raised noise, upon which some persons reached the spot and on seeing them, the accused ran away along with his pistol. It is further alleged that after that the accused also fired upon Dalip Singh, son of the complainant, but due to his good luck the pistol had not worked. On the basis of the said statement, FIR was registered against the accused. In support of its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and tendered certain documents in evidence. The respondent- accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had pleaded innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. However, in defence, the respondent did not lead any evidence. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence taken by the respondent, the trial court has acquitted the respondent, while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. After hearing learned counsel for the State, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. As per the prosecution version the accused was armed with a pistol and had fired three shots from a close range. In view of this allegation, it is highly improbable that none of the shots hit the complainant or his son. In the alleged occurrence, no injury was caused to any one. Crl. Misc. No. A-726-MA of 2009 -3- Further, as per the prosecution version, one missed cartridge was recovered from the possession of the accused vide recovery memo Ex.P3, which was sent to FSL, but the recovery itself has been held to be doubtful, because HC Gurnam Singh (PW.2) has stated that empty cartridge was deposited on 6.6.2006, whereas Dalip Singh (PW.6) has stated that the empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. Various contradictions in the statements of two material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW.6 Dalip Singh and PW.7 Chand Ram complainant have been noticed by the trial court, which have been discussed in detail in para 9 of the impugned judgment, which lead to the conclusion that the testimony of these two witnesses were not reliable. Further, the trial court has held that non-recovery of the bullet, by which complainant Chandi Ram escaped, also creates a doubt regarding story of firing upon the complainant party. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-State, we are of the opinion that from the evidence led by the prosecution in this case, no contrary view, than the one taken by the trial court, is possible. Therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent. In our opinion, the instant case is not a fit case, where the leave to appeal is to be granted to the State. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 11, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ndj JUDGE