JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Cr. MPM No. 1060 of 2015 1. For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 119 days in filing the leave to appeal, which in my considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Cr.MPM No. 1059 of 2015 Entire trial Court record perused and returned to the learned Additional Advocate General. 2. Assailing the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.V, Shimla, H.P., in Case No.4-2 of 2013, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hemans Kumar, whereby accused Hemans Kumar stands acquitted, State has filed the present leave to appeal under the provisions of Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. In relation to FIR No.21/13, dated 08.02.2013, registered at Police Station, West, Shimla, H.P., accused Hemans Kumar was sent to face trial for having committed offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 289 of IPC. 4. Allegedly the dog belonging to the accused bit complainant Neelam Sharma (PW.1). This was in the morning of 08.02.2013. The accused did not take adequate precaution of guarding the dog in his possession and thus endangered human life and caused grievous hurt. 5. Crucially in the instant case, the incident was not witnessed by any person. Smt. Kanta Sharma (PW.2) only states that while she was going to the fields, she heard a shrieking voice that dog of the accused had bit the complainant on her leg. 6. In the instant case, as has been rightly held by the Court below, prosecution has failed to establish the ownership of the dog. 7. Smt. Kanta Sharma admits that not only accused, but even she has a pet dog and also there are stray dogs in the village. 8. Complainant Neelam Sharma (PW.1) only states that the dog belonging to the accused bit her. Witness admits animosity between her family and the accused. As such, her statement needs to be examined with circumspection. She is not able to state with certainty as to whether the place where the incident took place belonged to the accused or not. In fact, she goes to state that accused did not keep any dog. There is nothing on record to establish the injury marks found on the body of the complainant to be that of the dog allegedly owned by the accused. Ownership of the dog in question remains unexplained. In fact, she goes to state that accused did not keep any dog. There is nothing on record to establish the injury marks found on the body of the complainant to be that of the dog allegedly owned by the accused. Ownership of the dog in question remains unexplained. 9. Court does not find the prosecution to have proved its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that the dog of the accused attacked the complainant and bit her on her leg, thereby committing an offence by omitting to take order with the dog in his possession, so as to guard against danger to human life and grievous hurt from the dog. There is no clear, cogent, convincing piece of evidence on record. 10. The Court below, in my considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that judgment of the Court below is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. 11. The accused person has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 12. For all the aforesaid reasons, present leave to appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.