HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINTIAL Leave to Government Appeal No.15 of 2008 State of Uttarakhand ……Appellant Versus 1. Hardeep Singh, S/o Sri Choor Singh. 2. Awatar Singh, S/o Sri Choor Singh. 3. Kashmir Kaur, W/o Sri Gurdeep Singh. All R/o Villae Mirarpur, Police Station Bhuta Bareilly…. Respondents Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Assistant Government Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. JUDGMENT Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This is an application for leave to appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 29/2003 State Vs. Hardeep Singh and Others whereby the respondents namely, Hardeep Singh, Awatar Singh and Kashmir Kaur were acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 394’ and 411 I.P.C. 2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that complainant Dharmendra-the taxi driver of Tata Sumo bearing no. 08 C-03387, lodged a report to the Police Station Shyampur District Haridwar on 1.11.1999 at about 23.50 hours alleging therein that on 1.11.1999 at about 5.30 pm three persons namely Awatar Singh, Mona, Sardar and one lday having a child booked the said vehicle for Kashipur. When they reached near Pilli Nadi, Shyampur (Haridwar), one of the occupants of the vehicle asked the complainant Dharmendra (driver) to stop the vehicle. When the complainant stopped the vehicle, one of the occupants snatched the key of the vehicle from him. Thereafter, the driver/the complainant was thrownout from the vehicle and the occupants fled away with the vehicle. Consequently, complainant Dharmendra reached at the police station and lodged a written report. The police investigated the matter and after the completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against the respondents accused. The respondents accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Dharmendra PW1, Constable Pramesh Kumar PW2, Sub-Inspector D.P. Singh PW3, Constable Rajkirti Singh PW4 & Ravindra Kumar Chamoli PW5. Dharmendra PW1 is the eyewitness of the incident whereas Constable Pramesh Kumar PW2, Sub- Inspector D.P. Singh PW3 and Constable Rajkirti Singh PW4 are the witnesses with regard to the recovery of the vehicle and arrest of the accused persons. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate did not find the accused persons guilty of the offences and, as such, acquitted them from the charges levelled against them. 5. I have heard Mr. Tanuj Semwal, the learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State. 6. it is settled position of law that if two views are possible from the appreciation of the evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence. The view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted because the trial court has an opportunity to see the demeanor of the witnesses. Now, in light of the above, I will examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 7. The learned Assistant Government Advocate has not disputed the evidence which has been incorporated in the judgment. Dharmendra PW1 has stated in his evidence that he could not identify the accused persons in the night. He denied that any vehicle was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. He also denied that any of the accused person was apprehended by the police. He has categorically stated in his evidence that at the behest of the police the name of Kashmir Kaur was written in the F.I.R. The witnesses have categorically denied the participation of the accused persons in the alleged offence. Thus, the evidence of complainant Dharmendra PW1 has rightly been discarded by the trial court. So far as the evidence with regard to the recovery of vehicle and arrest of the accused persons is concerned, the trial court was justified in holding that there are contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, I do not find any fault in the approach of the trial court. In view of the above, I do not find that this is a fit case in which the permission for leave to appeal should be granted to the State against the acquittal of the respondents accused. 8. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed accordingly. 9. As I have dismissed the leave to appeal application, so the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) Dated 03rd March, 2008 V.K.