JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Accused Rajinder Singh (respondent herein) stands acquitted by the lower appellate Court, i.e. Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide judgment dated 27.02.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 38-S/10 of 2007, titled as Rajinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, in relation to an offence punishable under Sections 452 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It be only observed that originally State had filed challan against accused Rajinder Singh and accused Sandeep @ Bhartu. Accused Sandeep @ Bhartu was found to be a juvenile, as such, proceedings under the relevant enactment were separately initiated against him. In the instant case, Trial Court convicted accused Rajinder Singh for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 452 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/-, in relation to an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 452 IPC; and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of a sum of Rs. 4000/-, in relation to an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 326 IPC. In case of failure to pay fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, reversing the findings and the judgment so passed by the first Appellate Court. 4. As per the case of prosecution, on 12.07.2005, Liaq Ram (PW.1) lodged report at Police Post, Fagu, on the basis of which FIR No. 75/2005 dated 12.07.2005 (Ex.PW.8/B), under the provisions of Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. As per the complainant, on 11.07.2005, he had participated in the marriage ceremony of son of Parma Nand (PW.3). At about 1.30 AM, Sandeep called him to a corner and accused Rajinder Singh gave a blow with a knife on his abdomen. The incident was witnessed by Abhi Ram (PW.2) and Babu Ram (not examined). Investigation was conducted and incriminating material against the accused collected. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against accused Rajinder Singh. 5. The incident was witnessed by Abhi Ram (PW.2) and Babu Ram (not examined). Investigation was conducted and incriminating material against the accused collected. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against accused Rajinder Singh. 5. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 452, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. No evidence in defence was led. 7. First Appellate Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. B.S. Parmar, learned Addl. Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the first Appellate Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 9. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 10. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: "(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under Section 417, Criminal P.c., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words: "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice." 11. That Dr. Dhrove Sharma (PW.5) and Dr. Pawan Sharma (PW.10) attended to the injured is not in dispute. Medical record is also on record to this effect. 12. We find that Parma Nand (PW.3), Krishan Lal (PW.6) and Dheeraj Kalia (PW.7) have not supported the prosecution case at all and despite being declared hostile and extensively cross-examined, nothing fruitful could be elicited from their testimonies. When we examine the testimony of Abhi Ram (PW.2), we find that he has only deposed that accused and the victim were quarrelling with each other. Nothing more is stated by him. 13. When we examine the testimony of Abhi Ram (PW.2), we find that he has only deposed that accused and the victim were quarrelling with each other. Nothing more is stated by him. 13. Testimony of Liaq Ram (PW.1), to our mind, has been correctly appreciated by the Court below and we do not find any illegality or perversity therein, for in no uncertain terms, he admitted that the place where incident took place it was dark and it was difficult to recognise persons standing there. Many persons were standing there on the spot. Who gave the blow is unclear. Also, it has come in his testimony that scissors with which he was allegedly assaulted was brought by the police and he was not aware from where it was so recovered. 14. Testimony of police official Subhash Kumar (PW.9), to our mind, is uninspiring in confidence. Discussion in paras 38 and 39 of the impugned judgment to this effect is borne out from the record and findings sustainable in law. 15. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove the charged offence. 16. The Lower Appellate Court, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that the judgment of lower appellate Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 17. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the lower appellate Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that lower appellate Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Courts below be immediately sent back. Appeal Dismissed.