IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 964 of 2009. Date of decision: 23.12.2009. State of H.P. …..Petitioner- Appellant. Vs. Kamal Dev & ors. …. Respondents. 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 Respondents : Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application of the State for grant of leave to file appeal against judgement of acquittal dated 30.6.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, Una in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2006, wherein the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents of offence punishable, under Sections 451, 323, 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The prosecution case is that incident took place on 25.8.2004. PW 1 Dr. Manoj Kumar has examined PW 2 Sheela Devi on 7.9.2004 at 3.40 p.m. The Medical Officer opined the nature of injuries simple, caused with blunt weapon. In cross examination, PW 1 has stated that injuries appeared to be fresh. This creates suspicion in the case of the prosecution that incident took place on 25.8.2004. The complaint Ex. PW 2/A was filed in the court of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1.9.2004 after a gap of about six days and thereafter FIR Ex. PW 5/A was recorded. There is no explanation regarding delay in filing the complaint. The utterances regarding the caste of the complainant were not believed by the learned Special Judge and he has discussed the evidence in detail. PW 4 did not support the prosecution case. He had stated that in his presence accused had not trespassed into the verandah of PW 2 nor had used foul language against her. In the complaint allegations have been made against ten persons but during investigation allegations were confined against only three persons. PW 2, PW 3 and PW 8 then again stated that ten persons committed the offence. There is thus inconsistency in the prosecution case. PW 8 in affidavit Ex. DA/1 has stated that action be not taken on his complaint against accused No.1. He further admitted that he filed complaint against accused No. 1 without any basis. The learned Special Judge after considering the entire evidence has recorded specific findings that no case, under Sections 451, 323, 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. The learned Special Judge has noticed several contradictions, improvements in the judgement. I have gone through the record. The learned Special Judge has correctly appreciated the material on record. The learned Additional Advocate General has failed to make out any case for grant of leave to file appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal refused and the application is dismissed. December 23, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.