IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.407 of 2008 Decided on: April 28, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Petitioner. VERSUS Manohar Lal & Anr. ….Respondents. 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 respondents : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State has filed this petition seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 21.1.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu in Cr.case No.107- I/2004 / 78-II/2005 acquitting the respondents of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The facts, in brief, are that PW-3 Om Prakash, complainant, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Khadagar was returning to his village on scooter at about 7 p.m. on 17.2.2004. At Jaipur Jibhi bridge he saw two persons carrying a log of wood. The complainant asked them where they were carrying the log of wood, on this respondent No.1 Manohar Lal gave punch on the nose of the complainant and he fell down from his scooter. The respondent No.2 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… Lotam Ram also joined respondent No.1 in beating the complainant. On raising alarm, PW-2 Damodar Dass and PW-4 Kundan Lal saved the complainant from the respondents. An F.I.R. Ext.PW-3/A was registered at Police Station, Banjar. The complainant was examined by PW-1 Dr.Satish Kumar who issued MLC Ext.PW-1/A which revealed fracture of nasal bone of the complainant. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court and the respondents were charged for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they led no evidence in defence. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondents, as noticed above. Hence, application for leave to file appeal by the State. 2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the respondents have taken the defence that the complainant was highly drunk at the time of alleged incident and possibility cannot be ruled out that he received injuries by fall from the scooter which he was driving under the influence of liquor. PW-1 Dr.Satish Kumar, after examination of PW-3 Om Prakash complainant, has issued MLC Ext.PW-1/A. The complainant was examined at about 8.15 p.m. and at that time he was emitting smell of alcohol, his pupils were slightly dilated and reacting sluggishly to light reflexes, his speech was also slightly slurred. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has noticed that F.I.R. Ext.PW-3/A was registered at the Police Station at 7.30 p.m. within half an hour of the alleged incident. It means at the time of alleged incident, the influence of liquor on complainant was more. …3… PW-2 Damodar Dass, who allegedly saved the complainant from the respondents, did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. PW-3 has stated that PW-2 Damodar Dass and PW-4 Kundan Lal came to the spot 6/7 minutes after the incident, it means PW-4 Kundan Lal has also not seen the incident. The prosecution has not examined any other independent witness who has actually seen the occurrence. Dr.Satish Kumar PW-1 has stated that the injuries noticed by him on complainant were possible by fall on hard surface. This part of the statement of Dr.Satish Kumar has been noticed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the impugned judgment. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record. 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. April 28, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)