IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.324 of 2008. Date of decision: 5.4.2008 State of H.P. ………. Petitioner Vs. Mukesh Kumar …. 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 Respondents : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This is an application for grant of leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.I, Ghumarwin, in Case No.82/2 of 2006 acquitting the respondent under Sections 451, 323, 506 IPC in a case arising out of FIR No.8/2006, Police Station, Talai. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 Parma Nand complainant on 6.1.2006 at about 8.30 p.m. was sitting in his shop and respondent Mukesh Kumar, his cousin, visited the shop and asked money from him in order to purchase liquor. The complainant refused to give money to the respondent, on this respondent caught hold the complainant and gave beatings to him. The complainant Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… was rescued by his wife Kaushalya Devi PW-3. The respondent Mukesh Kumar took out a knife from his pocket and assaulted the complainant with the knife resulting injuries on his right fingers. The respondent also hit the complainant on his legs which caused injuries. PW-4 Sanjeev Kumar and PW-2 Bakshi Ram came to the spot and the respondent fled away from the spot after extending threats to the complainant. The FIR was lodged on 7.1.2006. 3. In para-9 of the judgment learned Magistrate has noticed that PW-3 Kaushalya Devi wife of the complainant has stated that except some abusive language the accused had not done anything with her husband. Statement of PW-2 Bakshi Ram has been considered in para-10 of the judgment, who has stated that no fighting took place in his presence. There are 40-50 shops at the place of incident. PW-4 Sanjeev Kumar in his statement has stated that no fighting took place in his presence. PW-5 Ramesh Kumar and PW-6 Chhotu Ram are witnesses of recovery of knife Ex.P-1 through memo Ex.PW-7/F. They have stated that nothing was recovered in their presence, statements of PW-5 and PW-6 have been considered by learned trial Magistrate. PW-8 Dr. Manjeet Singh who examined the complainant Parma Nand has stated that injuries found on the person of Parma Nand can be caused by the fall of a tree which has been noticed by learned trial Magistrate in para-14 of the judgment. There is delay in lodging the FIR, as per learned trial Magistrate. The learned Court below has taken a possible view from the material on …3… the record. No case for grant of leave has been made out, hence, leave to file appeal is rejected. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. April 5, 2008 (sks)