IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Government Appeal No. 1898 of 2001 (Old No. 755 of 1999) State of U.P (Now State of Uttarakhand) ………………..Applicant Versus 1. Brahampal @ Brahm Singh S/o Jodh Singh R/o Amarpur Kaji 2. Yashpal @ Pali S/o Atar Singh , P.S Bhagwanpur Haridwar 3. Bhura S/o Akhtar 4. Smt Channo/ Dhani (wife of Yashpal) R/o Mahalla Teliyan Kasba and P.S Jhabreda, Haridwar …..…………Respondents Shri Nandan Arya, A.G.A, present for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Oral: Hon'ble Prafulla C.Pant, J. This Government Appeal along with application for leave to appeal received from Allahabad High Court 2 under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal. (2) We heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for leave to appeal and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.1998 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar for Sessions Trial No. 249 of 1996 whereby said court has acquitted accused/respondents Brahmpal @ Brahm Singh, Yashpal @ Pali, Bhura and Smt. Channo/Dhani (wife of Yashpal), of the charge of offences punishable under section 302, 201 I.P.C. (3) It is a case of circumstantial evidence, five of the prosecution witnesses namely PW2 Jyotiram, PW3 Kamil, PW4 Tejpal, PW5 Ram Kumar and PW6 Jamil have not supported the prosecution story. In the circumstances the trial court had no option but to acquit the accused as the chain of circumstances was not found complete against the respondents to hold them guilty of the charge against them. 3 (4) Having gone through the impugned order, and lower court record, we do not find, it is a fit case for granting leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal is rejected. The appeal stands dismissed summarily. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 26.11.2010 Nahid