IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1198 of 2008 SIYA SHARAN MANJHI, S/o Late Raghunandan Manjhi, R/o Village-Arai Dih, P.S.-Shahjahanpur, District- Patna. …… Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Pradip Singh, ……Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : None For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 2 24-06-2010 This matter was taken up on call, when on the request of learned counsel representing the petitioner; it was directed to be called out at quarter past twelve. When case was again called out, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the state. This application is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09-08-2008 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna City in Shahjahan P. S. Case No. 01/95(G.R. NO. 1458/95). The opposite party herein was tried and acquitted of the charge punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. An F.I.R. was lodged on 29-10-1995 relating to an occurrence allegedly committed on 24-10-1995. As per prosecution case, the victim (PW-3) was molested by the accused, when she had visited his house. 2 In support of the prosecution case, three witnesses namely pW-1 (brother of the informant), PW- 2(father of the victim) and the victim girl herself (PW-3) were examined. Learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence on record found that the informant was owing certain amount due to the accused (Opposite Party no. 2). It is further found that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution was at variance on vital issues. The age as disclosed by the victim in the First Information Report was also not found correct. The learned Magistrate has also taken into account the fact that the investigating officer of the case was also not examined in order to substantiate the prosecution case. Delay in filing the case has also not been explained by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the court below has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubt. This court finds no illegality and/or perversity in the judgment and order of acquittal. The application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. Sujit ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )