IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M). No. 817/2010 Date of decision: 28. 9. 2010 State of H.P. …applicant/appellant Versus Nisha Sood ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1no For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : None. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) Record of the learned trial court received and perused. 2. Heard. 3. Respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 283 and 323 Indian Penal Code. State felt aggrieved as such filed the instant petition, seeking leave to appeal. 4. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.7.2007 PW7 Nand Lal was allegedly bitten by a dog belonging to the respondent while he was going to take water from the “Shimla Hotel” where the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - respondent was residing. He reported the matter to police. Case was registered in terms of FIR Ext. PW4/A. Injured Nand Lal was got medically examined from PW5 Dr. Atul Gupta. He issued MLC Ext. PW5/A. Police later on took the opinion Ext. PW5/C according to which the injuries noticed on the person of Shri Nand Lal may be possible due to dog bite. 5. Police prepared the site plan Ext. PW9/A of the place of alleged incident. After completing the investigation, presented the challan in the Court for the trial of the respondent. 6. Learned trial Court, at the end of trial acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the prosecution failed to connect the dog in question with the ownership of the respondent. Further that Nand Lal was an employee of PW8 Dalip Chopra with whom, the accused has litigation for over a decade with respect to the same property wherein Dalip Chopra has been running electrical goods shop and the respondent has his residence on its first floor. There was no clinching evidence that the injury on the person of Nand Lal were due to dog -bite. 7. I have examined the evidence on record. I do find from the testimony of PW8 Dalip Chopra and also the Investigating Officer PW6 H. C. Pawan Kumar that said Shri Dalip Chopra had purchased some - 3 - portion of the “Shimla Hotel” from the brother-in-law of the respondent over which the litigation is going on. It also stands proved that injured Nand Lal was an employee in the shop of Shri Dalip Chopra aforesaid. PW5 Dr. Atul Gupta noticed two simple injuries on the person of Nand Lal. As per opinion dated 10.7.2007, these injuries on the thigh and the leg could be possible due to dog bite but he also did not over rule the possibility having been caused due to fall. Further there is no clinching evidence that the dog in question belonged to the respondent. 8. Thus, on the close scrutiny of the evidence aforesaid, I do not find any reasonable ground for granting leave to appeal. Hence, the petition is rejected. September, 28, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)