IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Leave to Government Appeal No. 28/2009 in Govt. Appeal No. 16/2009 State of Uttarakhand … Appellant. Versus Nakli Ram and others .. Respondents. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. By way of this appeal U/S 378(3) Cr.P.C. the State has challenged the judgment and order dated 23-8-2008, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ Ist F.T.C., Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 145/1997, State Vs. Nakli Ram and others, U/Ss 302/34, 307/34 I.P.C., thereby acquitting the accused persons Nakli Ram, Ramendra and Soran from the charges levelled against them. Heard Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. After having considered the entire material available on record, we are of the view that the prosecution could not establish the genesis of its case beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitnesses account produced by the prosecution has also not supported the prosecution case with regard to the guilt of the accused persons. It is also worthy to mention here that the accused persons are not nominated in the first information report, but subsequently the same person, i.e. the complainant who has allegedly sustained the injuries during the 2 course of incident, has mentioned the names of the accused persons in his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C., which is creating a serious doubt on the prosecution case. The manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, also appears to be doubtful, as the important material witness, who is the wife of the deceased and was sleeping by the side of the deceased on the same cot at the time of the incident, has not sustained even a single abrasion on her person, while the deceased has sustained six incised wounds on his person. The trial court while assessing the evidence of the witnesses has specifically recorded the finding that the eyewitness account is not trustworthy as well as the investigation of the case also does not appear to be proper and in accordance with the settled provisions of the law. The trial court has also held that in view of the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses it would be extremely hazardous to accept their testimony and the prosecution should not be permitted to fill-up the lacuna in the evidence for the purpose of improvement. The trial court has also indicated in the impugned judgment the important portion of the deposition of eyewitnesses account and we find ourselves in total agreement with the conclusion drawn by the trial court. We are also of the view that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is no justification for holding the accused persons guilty for the offences U/Ss 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. The judgment and order passed by the trial court does require any interference. 3 Accordingly, the special leave to appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal against the acquittal of the respondents is also dismissed. (B.S. Verma, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) Dated: 18-08-2009 ISB 4