IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.29 of 2010 NANHAKI DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 12.04.2010 This is an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2nd January 2010 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar passed in Complaint Case No. 1194(c ) of 2008, Tr. No. 155 of 2009 whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 of the charges under Sections 147 and 380 IPC for which they were tried by the learned Magistrate. The complaint filed by the appellant/complainant was that on 23rd October 2008 at about 7:00 P.M. while she was engaged in her house-hold work, O.P.Nos. 2 to 7 being variously armed came there and the O.P.Munmun Singh put a revolver on her chest, snatched away here silver Hasuli and he also took out the bunch of keys from the key-ring from her waist and gave it to the O.P.Mantu Singh. Further allegation was that the other O.Ps/accused who were armed with Lathi forcibly entered into the house and took away ornaments, clothes, utensils and other articles valued at Rs.20,000/-. The complainant also alleged that the O.P.Nos. 2 to 7 threatened her not to lodge a case. The complainant filed the complaint on 24th October 2009. After enquiry, cognizance was taken and the O.P.Nos. 2 to 7 were put on trial. As many as 4 witnesses were examined. P.W.1 was the complainant herself, P.W. 4 was her son and P.Ws 2 and 3 were co- villagers. While recording the order of acquittal, the learned Magistrate considered that P.W.1 stated at Para-12 of her evidence that at the time 2 of occurrence, she was alone in her house and the witnesses had come when the accused persons had left the P.O. P.W.2 also admitted at Para- 9 that he had come to the P.O. on hearing hulla. P.W.4 stated at Para 1, 4, 11 and 12 that he was out of the house and later on he had come to the house, though he stated further that the accused forcibly got him seated inside the room during the occurrence and that subsequently when he raised hulla, P.Ws. 2 and 3 had come. The P.W.2 himself admits to have arrived later on hulla raised after departure of the accused persons, as also admitted by P.Ws.1 and that P.Ws. 2 and 4 had come when the accused had left the place. Thus, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 cannot be reasonably accepted to be eye witnesses, though they claimed to be so. The trial court has also considered that one Ekmi Devi, the daughter of the complainant has got 4 decimals of land settled in her favour by the State, but the complainant and her son do not allow her to possess the land for which she had filed a case against the P.W.4, her brother. The materials as coming in the evidence of witnesses show that the O.P. Ramdeo Singh is an old man aged about 80 – 85 years and the O.Ps. belong to the same family. It is also submitted that the O.P. Ramdeo Singh has been Mukhiya of the village for last 20-25 years. It was further considered that the O.P./accused Bashishtha Singh is engaged in advocacy and he is the richest person of the village. The learned trial court also considered that the O.Ps. are helping Ekmi Devi who had filed a case against her brother and that due to this anguish, they have been implicated in this case. The anguish in P.Ws 2, 3 and 4 3 for deposing on behalf of complainant was also considered by the trial court which finds mention in the judgment that the witnesses were working as labourers under accused/O.P. and that they were not being paid adequate wages for the same. On consideration of these defects and discrepancies, the learned trial court did not believe the allegation and the prosecution case and, therefore, the order of acquittal was recorded. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment as passed by the learned trial court. Therefore, this application for leave to appeal is rejected. Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad, J )