IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.81 of 2008 Decided on: March 20, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Petitioner. VERSUS Rajesh Kumar & another ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. For the respondents : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State has filed this petition seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 15.9.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class(4), Shimla in Cr.Case No.RBT 20/2 of 2007 acquitting the respondents under Sections 341, 323 and 506-II I.P.C. read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The facts, in brief, are that PW-1 Virender Kumar vide application Ext.PW-1/A addressed to Incharge, Police Post, Lakkar Bazar, has alleged that on 4.12.2006 he was unloading goods at about 8.30 a.m. near Loading Point at Lakkar Bazar, Bus Stand. One shopkeeper had asked him to take his vehicle ahead, he took his vehicle ahead then another shopkeeper had asked him to take his vehicle back. He replied that he would go in a few minutes. On this, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… both shopkeepers started beating him. Some other persons also joined them in beating him. He was accompanied by Kuldeep son of Surinder Kumar. PW-1 has also alleged in the application that his gold chain was also lost during the scuffle. The statement Ext.PW- 1/B of Virender Thakur was recorded and thereupon F.I.R. Ext.PW- 3/A/A was registered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against the respondents and they were tried for having committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506-II read with Section 34 IPC. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondents on 15.9.2007, hence, State has come in this Court seeking leave to file appeal. 3. I have heard Mr.A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record. PW-1 had submitted application Ext.PW-1/A dated 4.12.2006 addressed to Incharge, Police Post, Lakkar Bazar. In that application he has stated that two shopkeepers have given beatings to him on 4.12.2006 at about 8.30 a.m. near Lakkar Bazar, Bus Stand. There were other persons also with them who also gave beatings to him. Kuldeep son of Surinder Kumar was with him at the time of incident. He had one gold chain which has also been lost during the incident. In Ext.PW- 1/A he has not named the respondents nor he has stated that other than Kuldeep anybody else was with him at the time of incident. PW- 1 in his statement in the Court has not stated that PW-2 Raman Verma and PW-6 Jai Chand were with him at the time of incident. Ext.PW-1/C is the identification memo signed by PW-2 Raman Verma and PW-7 Sandeep. Identification memo is only with respect to the …3… fact that PW-1 has identified the respondents in presence of Raman Verma and Sandeep. PW-1 in his statement Ext.PW-1/B under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has not identified and named respondents nor he has stated that PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 were present at the time of incident. Therefore, Statements of PW-2 Raman Verma and PW-6 Jai Chand are of no help to the prosecution who claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses. Kuldeep, who was allegedly with complainant at the time of incident, has not been examined. The learned Magistrate has appreciated the material on record properly. No case has been made out for grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment. Hence, leave to appeal refused and the petition is dismissed. March 20, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)