IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 430 of 2008 Judgement reserved on: Date of decision: May 2,2008. State of H.P. …..Petitioner- Appellant. Vs. Ramesh Chand …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The State has filed this petition seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgement, dated 22.2.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 55-S/10 of 2007, allowing the appeal and acquitting the respondent for offences punishable, under Sections 451, 323 and 506 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.9.2005, a rapat Ex. PW 3/A was recorded at Police Station, Kotkhai alleging therein that respondent and one Partap gave beatings to the wife of PW 2 Banka Ram complainant. On this, statement Ex. PW 1/A of PW 1 Promila was recorded, under Section 154 Cr. P.C. who alleged that Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… on 12.9.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. respondent Ramesh Kumar came outside her house and kicked her door and he was asking for opening of the door. She opened the door and found that respondent was under the influence of liquor. The respondent trespassed into her house, slapped her and also gave kick blow on her back. He also threatened to do away with her life. The blood started oozing out from her nose and mouth. On hearing her cries, her husband PW 2 Banka Ram came inside and rescued her. Partap, who was with the respondent also threatened to do away with the life of Promila. It has been alleged that Banka Ram and his wife could not earlier report the matter to the police due to fear. They could manage to come Shimla on 16.9.2005. They reported the matter to the Chief Minister and only then the police came into action. On the basis of statement Ex. PW 1/A, FIR Ex. PW 3/B came to be registered. 3. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a specific finding that prosecution case is that PW 3 Hem Raj, PW 5 Diwan Singh and PW 6 Jai Singh had seen the incident but all of them have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances the statements of PW 1 Promila Devi and her husband PW 2 Banka Ram are left for consideration. It has been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge that Promila Devi has stated that incident took place in absence of her husband who was not in the house at that time. PW 2 Banka Ram the husband of Promila Devi on the other hand has stated that he was present in the house when the respondent had made forcible entry in the house. PW 2 has stated that respondent and his associate had entered up to stair case only …3… and not in the house. PW 1 and PW 2 have not supported each other. No other independent witness has supported the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record. No case for grant of leave to file an appeal has been made out. Hence, leave refused, petition dismissed. May 2, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.