JUDGMENT : (Sanjeev Kumar, J.) 1. This appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir (now the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir) is directed against judgment dated 28.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [“the trial court”] in file No. 53/Challan titled “State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Raju Singh alias Mangii” whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondent of offence under Sections 302/452/34 RPC, 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act. 2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG to assail the judgment impugned, we deem it appropriate to notice briefly the prosecution story. 3. On 1st September, 2001 at about 6:20 P.M. Police Station, Talab Tillo received an information that some persons, namely, (1) Raju Singh, (2) Varinder Kumar, (3) Raman Kumar and (4) Arun Kumar along with other accused persons, after hatching criminal conspiracy and with common intention to kill, had attacked a person inside the shop of one Bansi Lal at Gole Pulli, Jammu and severally injured him. It was reported to the Police that respondent, namely, Raju Singh had fired with pistol whereas other accused persons had given blows to the said person with deadly sharp edged weapons and that the injured was lying in the pool of blood. This information was transmitted by the Police Post, Talab Tillo to Police Station, Nowabad and as a consequence whereof a case FIR No. 152/2001 for offence under Sections 307/148/149 RPC, 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act was registered in the Police Station, Nowabad. Investigation was entrusted to incharge Police Station, Talab Tillo. 4. The I.O. rushed to the spot and got the injured lifted from inside the shop of Bansi Lal and took him to hospital through flying squad for treatment. The injured was admitted in hospital vide MLC No. 1382 dated 01.09.2001 in the emergency ward. The I.O. prepared the docket for statement of injured but the Medical Officer attending the injured wrote on the docket that the injured was dead. The I.O. completed the requisite formalities, recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and got the post-mortem conducted on the deceased etc etc. 5. The I.O. found the case proved against two accused i.e. respondent, Raju Singh, and one Varinder Kumar alias Kaka, who as per the investigation conducted, had committed the murder of the deceased. Challan was laid before the trial court. 5. The I.O. found the case proved against two accused i.e. respondent, Raju Singh, and one Varinder Kumar alias Kaka, who as per the investigation conducted, had committed the murder of the deceased. Challan was laid before the trial court. The trial court after hearing prosecution and defence, framed the charges against the respondent herein and accused Varinder Kumar for commission of offence under Section 302/452/34 RPC read with Sections 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the statements of witnesses were recorded. While the trial was going on, the accused Varinder Kumar absconded and was proceeded under Section 512 Cr.P.C. 6. With a view to sustain the charge against the respondent, the prosecution produced PW Naveen Kumar, PW Harbans Gupta, PW Arun Kumar, PW Mukesh Gupta, PW Munish Kumar, PW Ranjeet Singh, PW Sidharth Sharma, PW Ajay Bali, PW Bua Ditta, PW Krishan Lal, PW Sarandeep Singh, PW Karan Singh, PW Arun Kumar, PW S.H. Bhukari, PW Bindra Ram, PW Shiv Kumar, PW Leela Devi, PW Jagdish Raj, PW Bansi Lal, PW Madan Gopal, PW Barkati Begum, PW Shafiq Ahmed, PW Janak Singh, PW Ram Pal, PW Vijay Kumar, PW Kirpal Singh, PW Tarsem Raj, PW Vishal Sharma, PW Sukhbir Singh, PW Harvinder Singh, PW Suresh Kumar, PW Rattan Lal, PW Parshotam Kumar Mengi (Dy. SP), PW Sukh Dev Singh SGC, PW Dr. Sanjay Bhat, PW Bashir Massiah, PW Manjeet Singh, PW Vinay Gupta and PW Daleep Kumar as witnesses. 7. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence were put to the respondent and his statement under Section 342 Cr. P.C was recorded. The respondent denied all the incriminating material and pleaded innocence. He, however, produced DW Niranjan Singh as his sole defence witness. 8. The matter was considered by the trial court in the light of evidences and material on record. The trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the respondent was entitled to a benefit of doubt. As a result, the trial court acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him vide its judgment of acquittal dated 28.12.2013 which the State has assailed before us in this appeal. 9. Mr. As a result, the trial court acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him vide its judgment of acquittal dated 28.12.2013 which the State has assailed before us in this appeal. 9. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG has mounted his challenge to the judgment impugned primarily on the ground that the trial court has, without giving any cogent reasons, brushed aside a clear and unequivocal testimony of eye witness PW Sarandeep Singh which is corroborated by the statement of doctor who has given a description of the injuries received by the deceased which caused his death. 10. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG fairly submits that most of the witnesses, cited by the prosecution, have either turned hostile or made contradictory statements. 11. Per contra, Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that none of the prosecution witnesses have substantiated the case of the prosecution that the deceased was killed by fire shots made by the respondent using his pistol. He submits that none of the witnesses except PW Sarandeep Singh have deposed anything incriminating against the respondent. He submits that so far as PW Sarandeep Singh is concerned, his testimony has not been rightly believed by the trial court because of his previous enmity and litigation with the family of the respondent and also that his uncle, namely, Ranjeet Singh, who as per the statement of PW Sarandeep Singh had witnessed the crime along with him, has not supported his version. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered view that the judgment passed by the trial court, in the face of evidence on record, cannot be found fault with and is required to be upheld. It is true that in a shocking incident that took place on 1st September, 2021 at about 6:20 P.M. in the shop of Bansi Lal, deceased Raju Pandit was killed. As per the information received by the police and the subsequent evidence collected during investigation, the respondent along with one Varinder Kumar was found responsible for such killing. The statements of other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Even on the basis of disclosure statement made by the respondent, the weapon of offence i.e. the revolver along with five rounds, four empty and one miss fire along with scooter No. 5830/JK02 were recovered. The statements of other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Even on the basis of disclosure statement made by the respondent, the weapon of offence i.e. the revolver along with five rounds, four empty and one miss fire along with scooter No. 5830/JK02 were recovered. Unfortunately, almost all the witnesses turned hostile during the trial. The Additional Public Prosecutor subjected them to cross-examination but could not elicit anything incriminating against the respondent. The testimony of PW Sarandeep Singh was not believed by the trial court for the reason that he was not an independent witness and had litigation with the family of the respondent. 13. That apart, PW Sarandeep Singh in his statement claimed that the respondent gave Kirpan blows to the deceased and Varinder Kumar alias Kaka fired shots at the deceased. The prosecution case is, however, to the contrary. As per prosecution version, the shots were fired by Raju Singh and injury by kirpan was caused by Varinder Kumar. He witnessed the occurrence along with uncle PW Ranjeet Singh, but when Ranjeet Singh entered the witness box, he did not support the version of Sarandeep Singh. He claimed that he was not available in Jammu on the date of occurrence. The trial court has also doubted the veracity of statement of Sarandeep Singh on the ground that he was an eye witness to the crime but was examined after two days after the occurrence without any explanation. 14. There is another feature in this case which is also noteworthy. The I.O. who investigated the matter could not be produced before the trial court due to his ailment. It has come on record that the I.O. could not be examined even on commission as he was totally paralysed and was not in a position to make any statement. Had I.O. been in position to come to the Court, perhaps some of the contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence could have been explained. Unfortunately this, too, did not happen. 15. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the evidence brought on record was not sufficient to connect the respondent with the commission of the crime. The trial court, therefore, was left with no option but to let off the respondent with benefit of doubt. 16. Unfortunately this, too, did not happen. 15. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the evidence brought on record was not sufficient to connect the respondent with the commission of the crime. The trial court, therefore, was left with no option but to let off the respondent with benefit of doubt. 16. We, hearing an appeal against acquittal, cannot take a view different from one taken by the trial court particularly when the evidence on record is insufficient to connect the respondent with the commission of crime i.e. murder of deceased, namely, Raju Pandit. Law is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, if the appellate Court, on evaluation of evidence, is of the opinion that two views are possible, the appellate Court would take the view which favours the accused. 17. Needless to say that it is golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and this presumption of innocence gets fortified by his acquittal by the trial court. 18. Keeping in view the parameters of law in respect of interference with the order of acquittal in appeal, we too are left with no option but to concur with the view taken by the trial court. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.