IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Leave Application 10/2009 With Criminal Appeal No. 100/2009 (Delay Condonation Appl. No. 210/2009) Harswaroop …….Applicant/appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …….Respondents May 19, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This appeal, preferred by the applicant/appellant u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Additional CJM, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 6066/2006, State v. Vijay Pal & Ors., whereby the respondents no. 2 to 8, viz., Vijay Pal, Udai, Ram Singh, Risalat, Kaley Khan, Lakhan and Udairaj have been acquitted of the charges of offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 427, 504, 506 IPC. There is delay of 18 days in filing this appeal. In view of the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, delay in filing the present leave to appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed accordingly. Heard Mr. KS Bhaskar, Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Also perused the judgment and order dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Additional CJM, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 6066/2006, State v. Vijay Pal & Ors. It was a complaint case. It reveals from the perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 8.12.2008 that only three witnesses were examined in support of prosecution case. Out of 2 those three witnesses, Faqeer Chand has not supported the prosecution case and has not identified any accused in the court. Another witness Harswaroop is not an eyewitness of the incident. The third witness Omvati, an alleged eyewitness of the incident, has named many other eyewitnesses in her statement but none of them could be examined before the trial court in support of prosecution case. Even otherwise, this witness has not supported the prosecution case in toto inasmuch as she has stated that she could not recognize as to who was driving the Maruti Van and she came to know the number of said Maruti Van only from the newspaper. Furthermore, she has not filed the original medical certificate of her injuries and only the photostat copy thereof could be filed, which was not proved in the trial court. As per her statement she suffered injuries in her mouth and nose, but according to the photostat copy of her medical report (which was not proved), there was no injury on her mouth and nose. Therefore, even her medical report does not at all support the prosecution case. Learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant also could not point out any mistake in the impugned judgment and order of the trial court on the basis of which leave to appeal can be granted. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to grant the leave to appeal. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and order of the trial court. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.5.2010 PRABODH 3