Crl.Misc. A-90-MA of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.A-90-MA of 2011 Date of decision: April 18, 2011. State of Haryana .....APPLICANT VERSUS Narsi Ram and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Sandeep Vermani, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the applicant. <><><> 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? T.P.S.MANN, J. By way of present application filed under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State of Haryana has sought grant of leave against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.9.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court acquitted the accused- respondents of the charges under Sections 148, 307/447 readwith Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Crl.Misc. A-90-MA of 2011 -2- According to the prosecution, the occurrence in question had taken place on 17.5.2009 at about 10.30 A.M, wherein the accused- respondents while armed with lathies and dandas, first dismantled the water-course and the rasta, regarding which a dispute was pending in the Court between complainant-Vinod Kumar and accused-Narsi Ram and when they were stopped from doing so, accused-Rajender used his gun to fire at them. While submitting application Ex.P-1 before the police for taking action against the accused-respondents, complainant-Vinod Kumar stated that the occurrence had been witnessed by Mahender, Ramniwas, Baskauri Devi and Maruti Devi. At the trial of the case, complainant-Vinod Kumar appeared as PW-1, while Baskauri Devi as PW-2. Both of them deposed that some unknown persons with muffled faces, had fired shot in the air. Accused- respondents present in the Court, were not there at the time of the occurrence. Both these witnesses were declared hostile at the request of learned Public Prosecutor. However, only Mahender while appearing as PW-3 supported the case of the prosecution. As per the report Ex.P-13 of the Forensic Science Laboratory, country made weapon Ex.P-3 was not connected with the empty cartridge recovered by the police from the spot. As complainant-Vinod Kumar PW-1 and his mother Baskauri Devi PW-2 have not made any incriminating statement against the accused- respondents and as the empty cartridge recovered from the spot did not match the weapon said to have been recovered from accused-Rajender, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of Mahender PW-3, especially, when according to Vinod Kumar PW-1, no one other than him, was present at the time of the occurrence. Crl.Misc. A-90-MA of 2011 -3- We have gone through the impugned judgement of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The findings arrived at therein are based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on the file. No case is made out for grant of leave to the State of Haryana for challenging the acquittal of the accused-respondents. Resultantly, the application is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) (T.P.S.MANN) April 18, 2011 JUDGE JUDGE pds.