IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No.601 of 2006 IN Special Leave to Appeal (Government Appeal) No.25-D of 2006 State of Uttarakhand ………. Applicant Versus 1. Menhdi Hasan S/o Sri Gulam Navi, 2. Samshad S/o Sri Menhdi Hasan, 3. Ramanand S/oSriAtar Singh, 4. Kali Ram S/o Sri Sadhu Ram, 5. Dhoom Singh S/o SriSadhu Ram, All residents of Village-Dadubaas Mazara Lalwala, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District-Haridwar. ………. Respondents Sri Tanuj Semwal, learned A.G.A. for the State/applicant Sri Bhuwanesh Joshi Advocate, holding brief for Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Date: May 12, 2009 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant,J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J. [Per : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.] This is delay condonation application No.601 of 2006 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 23.12.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Second Fast Track Court, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.67 of 2004, whereby the respondent/accused Menhdi Hasan, Samshad, Ramanand, Kaliram and Dhoom Singh are acquitted of charges punishable under Sections 436, 427, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. There is delay of 14 days in filing the appeal which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed with the application. 2 3. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned. (Delay condonation application No.601/2006 stands disposed of.) 4. Also heard on leave to appeal and perused the impugned order passed by the trial court. 5. The first information report is highly belated without any sufficient explanation. The trial court after examining the evidence of the witnesses found that due to the enmity the accused/respondents could have been implicated falsely as the complainant’s son is accused in the murder of father of accused/respondent Kali Ram. Apart from this, there was no medical report in support of the injuries alleged by P.W.1-Shambhoo. The trial court further found that there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses which create doubt as to the truthfulness to the prosecution story. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order passed by the trial court, we do not find it a fit case to grant the leave to appeal. 7. Leave is refused. The appeal stands dismissed summarily. (B.S. Verma, J.) (P.C. Pant, J.) 12.05.2009 P.Singh