JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. State has appealed against the judgment dated 16.3.2012, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in S.C. No.7-J/VII/2011, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satnam Singh & another, challenging the acquittal of respondents Satnam Singh and Ramesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stand charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 458 & 307, both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the case of prosecution, on 21.3.2010 at 8 p.m., accused Satnam Singh, without any sufficient cause or provocation, entered the house of complainant Harbans Singh Rana (PW-5) and assaulted him with a sword (Ex.P-5), as a result of which he sustained injuries on his hand. While accused Satnam Singh was assaulting the complainant, accused Ramesh Kumar kept vigil. The incident was witnessed by Neena Devi (PW-6), who cried for help, which prompted neighbours Subhash Chand (PW-7), Ranjit Singh (PW-8), Madhu Bala and Sito Devi (both not examined) reach the spot. Seeing the neighbours arrive on the spot, both the accused ran away. The complainant, who was bleeding profusely, was taken to Civil Hospital, Nurpur by Subhash Chand and Ranjit Singh, where he was examined by Dr. Ashutosh Joshi (PW-15), who also informed the police. Accordingly, police official Chaman Lal (PW-14) reached the hospital and recorded statement (Ex.PW-5/A) of the complainant, under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which FIR No.89, dated 22.3.2010 (Ex.PW-17/E), for commission of offence under Sections 307/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Investigation was further carried out by Dy.S.P. Badhri Singh (PW-17), who visited the spot and collected the blood stains splattered all over the floor, as also blood stained clothes of the complainant. 3. On 27.3.2010, investigation was handed over to ASI Deepak Kumar (PW-19), before whom, in police custody, accused Satnam Singh made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW- 1/C), so recorded in the presence of Ranjit Singh (PW-8) and Constable Narinder Kumar (PW-1), and further led to the recovery of weapon of offence, i.e. sword (Ex.P-5), vide Memo (Ex.PW-8/A), in the presence of Dalku Ram (not examined). 4. Scientific evidence to link the accused was obtained by the police and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PA) taken on record. 4. Scientific evidence to link the accused was obtained by the police and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PA) taken on record. 5. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, which led to the filing of challan and framing of charge for commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Section 458 & 307, both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and statements of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were also recorded, in which they took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led. 7. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted both the accused of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 8. We have heard Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General; Mr. Vikram Thakur & Mr. Puneet Rajta, Deputy Advocates General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj & Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocates, 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 trial 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 essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 10. 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 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 S. 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 S. 417, Criminal P.c. 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 recognized in the administration of justice.” 11. There are certain unexplained circumstances, which have emerged on record, rendering the genesis of the prosecution story to be doubtful, and that being (a) undisputedly, the complainant, who is a police official, was posted on a temporary duty at a fair at Kangra Temple. Incident did not take place at the fair. Complainant wants the Court to believe that the incident took place at his house. But then the distance between the house of the complainant and the place of his posting, remains unproven on record. It has also come on record that before leaving the place of his posting, complainant did not fulfill the procedure so required of making entries in the Rojnamcha. (b) The incident never came to be reported by the complainant directly to the police. According to him, he was assaulted by the accused at about 8 p.m., from where he was directly taken to the hospital and attended to by the doctor. Why is it that the complainant, who is a police official did not directly inform the police, remains a mystery. Also, why is it that he did not inform the police, which allegedly was present in the hospital, as is evident from endorsement on his statement (Ex.PW-5/A). Thus, genesis of the prosecution story itself is rendered doubtful. (c) Dy. S.P. Badhri Singh (PW-17) admits that he took over investigation of the case “as per verbal directions of SP”. Now, why the Superintendent of Police would interfere in investigation in a case of such like nature, remains unexplained. After all there was no law and order problem on the spot. We may also observe that Dy. S.P. Badhri Singh was not posted in the concerned Police Post or Police Station, but in fact was posted as a Sub Divisional Police Officer (Dy.S.P.). Why would he take over the investigation is also not clear. (d) Accused are not influential persons. They are not history-sheeters or have any past criminal record. We may also observe that Dy. S.P. Badhri Singh was not posted in the concerned Police Post or Police Station, but in fact was posted as a Sub Divisional Police Officer (Dy.S.P.). Why would he take over the investigation is also not clear. (d) Accused are not influential persons. They are not history-sheeters or have any past criminal record. ASI Deepak Kumar (PW-19) admits that on the date of the incident itself, i.e. 21.3.2010 at 8.30 p.m., accused Satnam Singh had himself got recorded a written complaint at Police Post, Kotala, that he had been abused and beaten up by complainant Harbans Singh. Now, what happened to this complaint again remains a mystery. All this renders the investigation to have been conducted by the police in a fair and impartial manner to be absolutely doubtful and further, the genesis of the prosecution case to be doubtful. 12. Now, when we examine the testimonies of the relevant witnesses, we find them not to be inspiring in confidence at all. According to the complainant, on the date of the incident at about 7.30 p.m., while he was coming from his old house to new house, he met Banty, who asked him not to proceed further as some boys were waiting to pick up a quarrel with him. Despite that he came to his house with Banty and Subhash, who thereafter left to their respective houses. At about 8 p.m., while he was taking meals in his house, accused Mani @ Satnam Singh came and gave a blow with the blunt side of the sword on his left shoulder. However, while trying to save himself, he sustained injuries on his hand and his thumb got severed. All this while, accused Ramesh Kumar was standing, witnessing the incident. When he cried, Madhu Bala, Sito Devi and Subhash arrived on the spot. Also his wife arrived on the spot. Though chased, the accused could not be caught, since it was dark. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital by Ranjit Singh and Subhash Chand, where he was attended to by the doctor and also his statement recorded by the police. 13. When we examine the examination-in-chief part of testimony of Neena Devi (PW-6), we find such version to have been corroborated. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital by Ranjit Singh and Subhash Chand, where he was attended to by the doctor and also his statement recorded by the police. 13. When we examine the examination-in-chief part of testimony of Neena Devi (PW-6), we find such version to have been corroborated. But when we read the cross-examination part of this witness, we find her to have made exaggerations and embellishments, rendering their testimonies to be extremely doubtful and uninspiring in confidence. 14. Why would the accused assault the complainant, remains unexplained by the witness. There was no prior animosity or motive. Their statements are further rendered doubtful, in view of Banty (PW-3) not having supported the prosecution. Further, in his statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we find him to have not disclosed the name of accused Ramesh Kumar at all. In fact, he has not even disclosed his particulars. As per the statement of the complainant, he could only recognize the companion of accused Satnam Singh. But, when police did not conduct any Test Identification Parade, then how is it that they were able to identify accused Ramesh Kumar to be the very same person, who accompanied accused Satnam Singh at the time of assault. 15. Be that as it may, in the statement (Ex.PW-5/A) with which the witness was confronted, there is no mention of the fact that accused Satnam Singh and Ramesh Kumar were accompanying those four-five boys, about whom Banti had cautioned him on his way to his house. 16. Now when we examine the statements of Subhash Chand and Ranjit Singh, we find them not to have witnessed the occurrence of the incident, though Subhash Chand does state that he had noticed the accused flee away from the spot. But, we do not find such version of Subhash Chand to be inspiring in confidence, for we find his presence on the spot to be doubtful. He admits that the house of Ranjit Singh is at some distance from his house. According to him, it was Ranjit Singh who had reached the spot earlier, whereas according to Ranjit Singh, both of them reached the spot together. Testimony of Ranjit Singh is conspicuously silent with regard to the accused having fled away from the spot, immediately after the occurrence of the incident. According to him, it was Ranjit Singh who had reached the spot earlier, whereas according to Ranjit Singh, both of them reached the spot together. Testimony of Ranjit Singh is conspicuously silent with regard to the accused having fled away from the spot, immediately after the occurrence of the incident. In fact, Ranjit Singh contradicts the complainant by stating that the names of the assailants were not disclosed by the complainant, for he was told that four-five unknown boys had followed him. 17. Even with regard to the recording of alleged disclosure statement, which led to recovery of the weapon of offence, we find the prosecution case to be doubtful. No signs of blood were found on the sword. Report of the Expert is evidently clear to such effect. 18. Also, on the issue of conspiracy and common intention, the witnesses are absolutely silent. 19. Hence, from the material placed on record, prosecution has failed to establish that the accused are guilty of having committed the offences, they have been charged with. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain of events does not stand conclusively established, leading only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused. 20. 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 that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed lurking house trespass, by entering into the house of complainant Harbans Singh and thereafter with an intention of causing his death, caused grievous hurt to him with a sword, which was dangerous to life. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 22. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 22. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.