IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.216 of 2008 Decided on: March 20, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Petitioner. VERSUS Sunil 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 3.11.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Arki, District Solan in Criminal Case No.92/2 of 2004 acquitting the respondent under Sections 279 and 201 I.P.C. in case F.I.R. No.143/2003 dated 12.11.2003, Police Station, Darlaghat. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 11.11.2003 at about 9.30 p.m. respondent was driving truck bearing registration No.HP-11- 2182. The respondent, while driving the truck in rash and negligent manner, hit Indica car bearing registration No.HP-24A-2969 near Kawarla which was coming from opposite side and ran away from the spot in order to screen himself from legal punishment. The statement Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… of complainant PW-5 was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereupon F.I.R. was registered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the respondent and he was tried for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 201 IPC. The learned Magistrate ultimately acquitted the respondent, hence, leave to file appeal application by the State. 3. Heard. The learned Magistrate has considered the statement of PW-1 Narpat Singh who was sitting in the car bearing registration No.HP-24A-2969 accompanied with Chet Ram and Bhagat Ram. He has stated that the truck bearing registration No.HP-11-2182 came from the opposite side and hit the car. The driver of the truck ran away from the spot. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent. He has stated that they followed the truck but they failed to trace it. At the time of accident, it was dark. PW-5 is the complainant who resiled from his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and was declared hostile. The prosecution cross examined him at length but nothing favourable to the prosecution was extracted in his cross examination. PW-5 has denied the identification of the respondent. In Para-13 of the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate has observed that PW-5 has specifically stated that he had not lodged the F.I.R. regarding the accident with the police. The entire case of the prosecution is shrouded with suspicion. PW-5 has not identified the respondent. PW-1 has admitted that it was dark at the time of accident. The identity of the respondent has not been established. The learned Magistrate has appreciated the material on record …3… properly. No 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 20, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)