IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Government Appeal No.236 of 2008 State of Uttarakhand. …… Appellant/Applicant. Versus Jaivinder S/o Bhekhari and two others ….. Respondents. Sri Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State-Applicant. Date 15th September 2008 Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C.Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. {Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)} (Delay Condonation application No.747/08) 1. Heard Sri Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State- Applicant. 2. This is an application No. 747 of 2008 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.5.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.156 of 2005. 3. Heard. 4. The Delay is sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/applicant. Delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. (Special Leave to Appeal No.81 of 2008) 5. Also heard on leave to appeal and perused the judgment and order, dated 24-5-2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions 2 Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2005, whereby the accused-respondents Jaivinder, Jagveer and Raj Kumar are acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that it is case of circumstantial evidence. The deceased is said to have gone at 7.30 p.m. on 20th July 2004 to irrigate his field and did not come back. It is further alleged in the First Information Report that field of co- accused- Bhikhari (not respondent) got filled with water and it was suspected by the complainant that Bhikhari might have killed the deceased (Hari Raj Singh) with his associates. However, the Post Mortem Examination report reveals that cause of death could not be ascertained. The abrasions, which were found as ante mortem injuries are superficial in nature (abrasion on the toe of the left foot, abrasion on the ankle of the left foot and abrasion on the ankle of the right foot). The Medical Officer, in his cross examination, has expressed the view that it cannot be ruled out that the deceased might have died after getting in contact with live electric wire or coming in contact with water, in which the electric current was passing. 7. Having gone through the entire judgment, we are of the view that it is not a fit case wherein interference is required with the order of the acquittal, recorded by the trial court, of the accused- respondents Jaivinder, Jagveer and Raj Kumar. 8. The leave is refused. The appeal stands dismissed in limine. (B.S.Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 15-09-2008 RCP 3 4 5