Judgment SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 15-6-88 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 47/86 by which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondent for offence under Sections 353 and 307, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THIS appeal arises in the following circumstances : (I) On 19-3-86 at about 11 a. m. P. W. 1 Jet Singh lodged a written report Ex. P/1 with the Police Station Sardarpura, Jodhpur stating that his duty in the day was in no entry area of Sardarpura and along with him P. W. 2 Narayan Singh constable was also on duty. In Sardarpura area, heavy vehicles were not allowed to enter and, therefore, for that it was no entry area. At about 10. 15 a. m. on 19-3-86 when he was standing near C-road, Sardarpura, from the side of C-road, a truck No. RJS 7581 came and P. W. 2 Narayan Singh tried to stop that truck and the truck was stopped and driver of the truck was accused respondent and he had no authority to enter into no entry area along with the truck as he was not having necessary papers and he was asked by P. W. 1 Jet Singh to proceed toward Police Station, Sardarpura, upon this the accused respondent became angry and thereafter, he tried to take his truck towards Telegraph office instead of Police Station. It is further stated in the report Ex. P/1 that when P. W. 1 Jet Singh tried to stop the vehicle, the accused respondent accelerated the speed of the truck and the truck struck against chest of P. W. 1 Jet Singh and when P. W. 1 Jet Singh cried, two to three persons also reached there, thereafter the vehicle was stopped. The accused respondent did that act with an intention to kill him. ( 3 ) ON this report police chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/6 and started investigation. ( 4 ) THE accused respondent was arrested on 19-3-86 through Fard Ex. P/9. ( 5 ) THAT after usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused respondent. The accused respondent did that act with an intention to kill him. ( 3 ) ON this report police chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/6 and started investigation. ( 4 ) THE accused respondent was arrested on 19-3-86 through Fard Ex. P/9. ( 5 ) THAT after usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused respondent. ( 6 ) ON 6-8-86, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges for offence under Sections 307 and 353, I. P. C. against the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ( 7 ) DURING trial, as many as 7 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused respondent was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and no witnesses was examined in defence. ( 8 ) AFTER conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused respondent for the aforesaid offence through his judgment and order dated 15-6-88 inter alia holding : (I) That statements of P. W. 1 Jet Singh and P. W. 2 Narayan Singh are not being supported by two independent witnesses P. W. 5 Anil and P. W. 7 Ram Singh and both independent witnesses P. W. 5 Anil and P. W. 7 Ram Singh have been declared hostile. (II) That the manner in which the incident has been narrated by P. W. 1 Jet Singh appears to be false one as if the truck would have dashed against him, he would have certainly received some sort of injuries. (III) That there are material contradictions in the statements of P. W. 1 Jet Singh and P. W. 2 Narayan Singh and from this point of view, the case of prosecution cannot be accepted. (IV) That names of P. W. 5 Anil and P. W. 7 Ram Singh have not been mentioned in the report Ex. P/1 though as per the statement of P. W. 1 Jet Singh, these two witnesses were present and both have not supported the prosecution case. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED from the said judgment and order this appeal has been filed by the State. P/1 though as per the statement of P. W. 1 Jet Singh, these two witnesses were present and both have not supported the prosecution case. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED from the said judgment and order this appeal has been filed by the State. ( 10 ) IN this appeal, it has been argued by the learned P. P. that findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are not based on correct appreciation of evidence and therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside and the accused respondent is liable to be convicted for the offences charged against him. ( 11 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submits that the judgment and order of the trial Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same do not call for interference by this Court. ( 12 ) I have heard both and perused the record. ( 13 ) THERE is no dispute in this case that P. W. 5 Anil and P. W. 7 Ram Singh have been declared hostile and there is also no dispute on the point that P. W. 1 Jet Singh did not receive any sort of injury. ( 14 ) THAT in the cross-examination P. W. Jet Singh has admitted following facts : (I) That he had not seen any notification which shows that heavy vehicles were not allowed in Sardarpura area, but he had simply seen the Board of no entry. (II) It is also correct to say that in the very beginning when the accused respondent was asked to stop the truck, he stopped the truck and he prepared challan and truck was seized. (III) It is also correct to say that the place from where the truck was seized there was turn and for the purpose of taking the truck to the Police Station Sardarpura, the truck was to be moved towards that side. (IV) It is also correct to say that the accused respondent did not make any objection when the truck was asked to be stopped. (V) That challan was also filed against the accused respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 27-3-86. (IV) It is also correct to say that the accused respondent did not make any objection when the truck was asked to be stopped. (V) That challan was also filed against the accused respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 27-3-86. ( 15 ) IN my opinion looking to over all statements of P. W. 1 Jet Singh, P. W. 2 Narayan Singh, P. W. 5 Anil and P. W. 7 Ram Singh, it appears that the incident as stated in the report Ex. P/1 did not take place. When the truck was stopped and thereafter challan was filed, then there remains nothing to be done so far as seizure of the truck in question was concerned as for that challan was already filed. ( 16 ) SO far as the case of the prosecution that the accused respondent tried to run the truck over P. W. 1 Jet Singh with an intention of killing him cannot be accepted as from the statement of P. W. 1 Jet Singh it appears that the truck was stopped when the accused respondent asked to do so. Had there been forcible dashing of the truck against P. W. 1 Jet Singh, he would have certainly received injuries and in absence of that and in other circumstances findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be confirmed one. ( 17 ) IN my considered opinion, the judgment of the learned trial Judge is based on correct appreciation of evidence and the reasons which has been assigned by the learned trial Judge are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished and this Court sitting and hearing appeal against acquittal would not like to disturb the order of acquittal merely on flimsy grounds. ( 18 ) THE Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan v. State of U. P. reported in (2001) 8 JT (SC) 200has held that the High Court is fully empowered to review the evidence while hearing appeal against acquittal, but it should be very slow in disturbing the findings of facts arrived at by the learned trial Judge. From this point of view also, the findings of learned trial Judge are liable to be confirmed one. From this point of view also, the findings of learned trial Judge are liable to be confirmed one. For the reasons mentioned above, the present State appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 15-6-88 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. Appeal dismissed. .