Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.32 of 2012 ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar Maskara .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Suresh Prasad Singh .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akash Chaturvedi & Mr. Gautam Kejriwal For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 17-10-2012 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.6.2012 passed by Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 316(C)/2005, Trial No. 80/2012 whereby Respondent no.2 has been acquitted from the charges under [STATUTE] . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Prosecution case initiated on Fardbeyan of one Sandeep Kumar Maskara, in brief, is that accused respondent no.2 was prejudiced to the complaint. He had whimsically made assessment for the year 2002-2003 of complainant’s firm Shivam Cement Industries. He deliberately delayed the issue of demand notice. He (complainant) applied for transfer of his file to other circle due to misdeed of the accused. Patna High Court SLA No.32 of 2012 (4) dt.17-10-2012 2 On 17.2.2005 a representative of the complainant namely Manoj Sharma came to the office of accused respondent no.2 to file return for the month/year of January, 2005. The representative was asked for presence of complainant. At about 3.00 PM complainant came to the office of accused respondent no.2. On his appearance, accused respondent no.2 started to abuse, on protest his collar of the shirt was caught and threatened about dire consequences. According to complainant appellant, his good-will and prestige was hurt/damaged due to the above act. Scrutinising the statement of complainant witnesses namely P.W.1 Ram Kishore Singh, P.W.2 Sandeep Kumar Maskara complainant himself and P.W.3 Rajesh Kumar, acquittal is recorded by passing the impugned judgment/order dated 28.6.2012, validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal. Non-examination of independent witness and improbability of the incident has been made ground for acquittal. It is not denied that C.W.1 is employee of the complainant and C.W.3 is his driver. Strained relation was there in between the complainant and the accused respondent no.2 is also an admitted fact. At the time of occurrence, other witnesses were there at Patna High Court SLA No.32 of 2012 (4) dt.17-10-2012 3 the place of occurrence has appeared in the statement of all the three complainant witnesses. For instance P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief itself in paragraph 2 states that 1-2 persons were present when he went in the office of the accused respondent no.2. C.W.2 complainant himself in paragraph 19 states about presence of 2-3 Commercial Tax Officers and several clerks. In paragraph 20 he states about presence of 8-9 persons with specification that they intervened. C.W.3 in paragraph 7 of the cross-examination states about remaining of 2-3 persons in the office. In the discussed circumstance, in my view also examination of independent witness is necessary in absence of which rightly statements of complainant and his witnesses have been disbelieved. Finding no merit in the impugned judgment/order dated 28.6.2012, this appeal is dismissed. A.I./N.A.F.R. (Mandhata Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.