IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Government Appeal No. 1867 of 2001 Old No. Government Appeal No. 1334 of 1999 State. …..…...Appellant. Versus Jahidh S/o Zarif, R/o Padli Ganda, Police Station – Subrang, District – Hardwar. …….Respondent. Coram Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand / appellant. This special leave to appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 12.01.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 1997 (State Vs. Zahid) under section 302 IPC thereby acquitting the accused – Zahid. Heard learned AGA for the appellant and perused the record. The trial court assessed the entire evidence in detail and has specifically observed that First Information Report was lodged against an unknown person. PW1 Gulfam is the informant and accused is his cousin brother (son of fufa). The complainant had seen the accused from a distance of 3 – 4 feet. It is quite surprising even the 2 name of accused did not find place in the First Information Report. This case appears to be a hit and run case and the incident alleged to have been taken place in the mid night. The solitary evidence of Gulfam does not find support by any other evidence and the evidence of Gulfam itself appears to be doubtful. Another aspect which has been dealt by the trial court is about the injuries sustained by the deceased. The inquest report and all other relevant documents indicate that there was only one injury on the above side of the right eye lid and the blood was oozing out from the right eye lid. But the postmortem report indicates that there were two fire arm injuries. The first injury was of entry of firearm wound in the brain cavity deep on left parietal and the parietal bone was fractured while the second injury was of exit of firearm wound on right temporal region. Having considered the aforesaid aspect, we are of the view that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge requires no indulgence. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. In view of the above, special leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal against the acquittal of accused respondent is also dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J) 09.03.2010 SKS/VKG