Crl.L.P. 70/2008 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.L.P. 70/2008 % Judgment delivered on: 16th July, 2008 State ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. versus Rajinder Singh ..... Respondent Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? yes KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. No. 3531/2008 By way of this application the petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing the criminal leave petition. For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed. Crl.L.P. 70/2008 Page 2 of 4 The application stands disposed of. Crl.L.P. No. 70/2008 By way of the present criminal leave petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner seeks leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 30th July, 2007 passed by the Court of Shri Vidya Prakash, Delhi whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge leveled against him for committing offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC. Mr. Pawan Sharma, APP appearing for the State submits that learned Trial Magistrate failed to appreciate the deposition of injured PW3 Jai Pal Singh, who in his deposition in unequivocal terms stated that he was hit by truck bearing registration No. HR-24-B-4200 from behind and at the time of the accident the accused Rajinder Singh was driving the said truck. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the evidence of the said injured was duly corroborated by the seizure of the said truck from the spot by IO and also from the deposition of PW-6, owner of the offending truck, who had admitted the employment of the said accused as driver of the said truck in question. Even in the evidence of PW-4, son of the victim, it was duly proved that the said truck had caused the accident. Counsel contends that the Trial Court also failed to appreciate that Crl.L.P. 70/2008 Page 3 of 4 the accused took a false plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C denying his presence at the spot of the accident while not disputing the seizure of the offending truck from the spot. Based on the aforesaid grounds the appellant seeks leave to file an appeal against the impugned order of acquittal. It is settled legal position that no interference can be made by the High Court with the order of the acquittal unless the approach adopted by the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusions arrived at by the Court below are so perverse or improbable to be arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judicially. The Appellate Court while granting leave to appeal, therefore, has to be very circumspect and cautious and it is only where there is an absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused on the evidence available on record, the order of the acquittal would be interfered or disturbed. It is admitted case between the parties that the TIP of the accused was not conducted during the course of the investigation and the accused was not apprehended from the site of the accident. After scrutinizing the evidence led by the prosecution the learned Magistrate reached the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt the involvement of the respondent accused in causing the said accident Crl.L.P. 70/2008 Page 4 of 4 while driving the said offending truck. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order has also observed that the main witness PW-3 victim of the accident could not establish beyond doubt the involvement of the accused in causing the accident. In his deposition he stated that he himself did not see the accused driving the offending vehicle. Counsel for the State has failed to point out any perversity, rationality or illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the present petition seeking leave to file an appeal to challenge the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Shri Vidya Prakash, Metropolitan Magistrate. There is no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. July 16, 2008 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J rkr