IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.195 of 2008 Decided on: March 18, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Petitioner. VERSUS Pawan Kumar ….Respondent. 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 respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State has filed this petition seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 28.11.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Arki, District Solan in Criminal case No.151/2 of 2003 acquitting the respondent under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. in F.I.R. No.131/2004 dated 14.10.2004, Police Station, Arki. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent was prosecuted under Sections 279 and 337 IPC on the ground that on 14.10.2004 at about 11.45 a.m. at place Bakhalag, he was rashly and negligently driving Bolero bearing registration No.HP-12A-5234. The respondent while driving Bolero, hit the same with Sukh Dev, Brij Lal and Tulsi Ram who were laying bitumen on the road and caused simple hurt to Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… those persons. The matter was reported to the police, statement of Sukh Dev under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded and thereafter F.I.R. Ext.PW-12/A was registered. The injured were medically examined vide MLCs Ext.PW-10/A, Ext.PW-10/B and Ext.PW-10/C. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the respondent in the Court under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent. 3. Heard. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. The prosecution has established the case against the respondent under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. He has prayed for grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment. 4. PW-1 Sukh Dev, Beldar, did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. In his examination in chief, he has not identified the accused but in cross examination he has stated that Pawan Kumar was driving the vehicle. He is not a reliable witness and has not been rightly believed by the learned trial Magistrate. PW- 2 Brij Lal has not identifed the accused. PW-3 is the Junior Engineer but he is not an eye witness. PW-4 is the Photographer. PW-5 Surinder Kumar was not present on the spot as observed by learned trial Magistrate in Para-8 of the impugned judgment. The learned Magistrate has observed that prosecution has examined three material witnesses, namely, Sukh Dev as PW-1, Brij Lal as PW-2 and Surinder Kumar as PW-5 but as noticed above, these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The learned Magistrate has drawn proper inference and has rightly acquitted the respondent. No …3… 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 18, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)