IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.322 of 2008. Date of decision: 5.4.2008. State of H.P. ………. Petitioner Vs. Shyam Singh …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application of the State, for seeking leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 29.12.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur in Cr. Case No.224/2 of 2003 acquitting the respondent under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the basis of statement Ex.PA under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of PW-1 Ashok Kumar FIR Ex.PW-4/A was registered. It has been alleged that on 4.5.2003 at about 4.30 p.m. the complainant was going with his family towards Barmana in a car which developed some mechanical fault before Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… Barmana and the driver stopped the car in order to repair the fault. The complainant along with his children came out of the car and were standing on the side of the road when Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HP-23-0176 came in high speed and hit his son Akshat Kumar, who fell down and started bleeding from his nose and mouth. The driver of Tata Sumo took Akshat Kumar to Bilaspur hospital, the doctor referred the case to PGI Chandigarh. It has been alleged that accident took place due to rash, negligent and dangerous driving on the part of the driver of Tata Sumo No.HP-23-0176. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on 29.12.2007, hence, the state has filed the application for leave to file the appeal. 3. The learned trial Magistrate in para-8 of the judgment has recorded a specific findings that PW-1 Ashok Kumar and his wife PW-2 Smt. Anita were standing on the road when their son was hit by Tata Sumo No.HP-23-0176. Both these witnesses have failed to identify the accused in the Court. PW-1 has stated that he cannot identify the accused as he got puzzled after seeing his child getting hurt and therefore, does not remember the identity of the accused. Similarly, PW-2 has failed to identify and recognize the accused. There is no other eye witness on record. The view taken by the learned trial Magistrate for acquitting the respondent for want of identification cannot be said to be perverse rather, it emerges from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 which have been considered by …3… learned trial Magistrate. No case has been made out for grant of leave to file appeal. Hence, leave to appeal is rejected. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. April 5, 2008 (sks)