- (1.) Prosecution story, in brief, was that on 11.12.2006, complainant was returning to his village. At about 9.00 P.M., a boy was being beaten up by the driver of a tractor. When the boy became unconscious and fell down, the driver of the tractor ran over the boy with his tractor. Accused Dev Kishan was proclaiming that he had taken his revenge. Thereafter, Dev Kishan sped away from the spot on his tractor. The complainant found out that the injured was his son Mahender. Complainant, father of the injured, took him to Goyal Nursing Home, where the doctors declared him dead. Thereafter FIR in question was registered.
(2.) After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the respondent. Charge was framed against the respondent under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). Prosecution led its evidence in support of its case.
(3.) Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 18.10.2010, acquitted respondent Dev Kishan of the charge framed against him under Section 302 IPC . Hence, the applicant-complainant has filed this application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 18.10.2010, whereby respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the opinion that the present application deserves to be dismissed. The trial Court, while acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him, held that Krishan son of Nanak Chand, Mahender son of Siri Chand and Laxman son of Girraj had been given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused. The said witnesses had been cited by the prosecution as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Thus, the only evidence that remained on record was statement of PW-1 Raghbir Singh, father of the deceased.;