IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.M. No.94 of 2008. Date of decision: 26.2.2008. State of H.P. ….. Petitioner. Vs. Harbans Lal …. Respondent. 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 Respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The State has filed this petition seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgement of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on 27.10.2007 in police challan No. 72-II-05, under Sections 279, 427 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that respondent was prosecuted, under Sections 279, 427 IPC on the basis of FIR Ex. PW 3/B. Further it is the case of the prosecution that complainant Shiv Pal Bisht on 13.6.2005 informed the police telephonically that an accident had taken place at Mehli. The statement of complainant was recorded and thereafter FIR was registered. The complainant has alleged that pick up jeep No. HP-28-2546 was purchased by him and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… he has kept Sanjeev Kumar as driver. On 13.6.2005 complainant alongwith his driver was coming in his jeep from Sandhol to Hamirpur. At about 6.15 a.m. at place Mehli Khad, a tipper bearing registration No. HP-67-0126 was coming from opposite side in high speed and dashed against the jeep, which caused damage to the vehicle of the complainant. After completion of investigation, the respondent was prosecuted, under Sections 279, 427 IPC. The prosecution examined six witnesses. The statement of the respondent was recorded, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondent pleaded his innocence and he did not lead any defence evidence. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, hence the State has filed this petition for leave to file an appeal. 3. Heard. 4. Shiv Pal complainant has stated that on 13.6.2005 at about 6.15 a.m. he was coming from Sandhol to Hamirpur in his jeep alongwith the driver and at place Mehli one tipper came from opposite side in high speed. The driver Sanjeev Kumar stopped the jeep but respondent dashed his tipper against the jeep. In cross examination, he has stated that so many persons gathered on the spot but none of them has been examined as a witness. PW 2 and PW 3 are not the eye witnesses. PW 4 is the Investigating Officer. PW 5 has examined the vehicle mechanically. PW 6 Sanjay Kumar has stated that at Mehli Khad the respondent has dashed his tipper against the pick up jeep and damaged the head light and front window screen. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent. …3… 5. The complainant Shiv Pal has not stated about the presence of Sanjay Kumar in the pick up jeep on the contrary complainant has stated that Sanjeev Kumar was driving the pick up jeep but Sanjeev Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution. The presence of PW 6 Sanjay Kumar in the pick up jeep at the time of accident is doubtful. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness to prove the case against the respondent. No case has been made out for grant of leave to file an appeal. Hence, petition for granting leave to file an appeal is rejected. February 26, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.