IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.113 of 2009 JAY NARAYAN RAI …….. Petitioner. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR . 2.ManoranjanSingh. 3.Satendra Singh . 4.Manoj Singh all sons of Late Jagarnath Singh. 5.Dharmedra Kumar Singh s/o Chandrika Singh. 6.Mohan Singh s/o Late Ram Jatan Singh. All resident of village Ram Chak P.S.Marhowrah District Saran at Chapra ……….Opp. Parties. ----------- 5 11.01.2010 The S.L.A. was heard on the point of admission. The present S.L.A. is against the judgment of acquittal dated 3rd June 2009 of the judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra (Saran) as passed in Complaint Case No. 2866 of 2004, Tr.No. 1712 of 2009. The petitioner was complainant in that case and his case was that he being a coal merchant had set out for Bokaro on 1st December 2004 carrying Rs.60,000/- with him for purchasing coal and that in the evening at 4 O’clock when he reached at Mahowrah Netua Gachi, the O.P.Nos. 2 to 6 surrounded him there and they tried to snatch the money and on protest by the petitioner, they assaulted him with Lathi and the O.P.No.2 caused incised wound by means of Chhura on his abdomen. The petitioner examined himself as well as two other witnesses on the point of occurrence who stated about the occurrence alleged. P.W.4. P.W.4 was the Doctor who found three swelling injuries and one incised wound of size 1 ½ ”x1”x1/4” ½”x skin deep on the informant. This Doctor was a 2 private Doctor who deposed to have examined injuries at Chapra on 2nd December 2004. While passing the judgment, the learned trial court considered infirmities in evidence of witnesses and other infirmities and on consideration of the same did not feel satisfied about the veracity of the complainants case and passed the judgment of acquittal. Firstly, the learned trial court considered that the complainant stated that he went to the Police Station but the Police Officer present there asked him to go to the Hospital, hence, he had gone to Mahowrah Hospital, but the Doctor was not available there and he had advised to go to the hospital at Chapra but the P.W.2 stated that the complainant had firstly gone to the hospital at Mahowrah and thereafter he had come to the Police Station at Mahowrah. The learned trial court also considered that the complainant says to have been advised to go to the Hospital at Chapra but he did not go to any hospital and he states to have gone to the clinic of a private Doctor, namely, P.W.4. This Doctor has admitted that he had examined the injuries but he also says that he had not informed the police about the examining of the injuries on the informant. It was further considered that the complainant stated in his evidence that he remained admitted for one day in the clinic of P.W.4 but P.W.4 admitted in his evidence that the complainant was not admitted into his clinic. Learned trial court also considered that the very basis 3 of the petitioner-complainant’s case was that he is a coal merchant and that he was going with Rs.60,000/- for purchasing coal, but the petitioner-complainant did not produce any evidence to show that he was a coal merchant. Any kind of license for dealing in coal as a retail dealer was not produced. Petitioner claims to be a retail dealer, but the trial court found in this context that the petitioner-complainant did not produce any certificate from the Weights and Measurement Department that he was engaged in the weighing of the coal as a retail coal dealer. In view of the above infirmities, learned trial court found the complainant’s case doubtful and acquitted the O.P.Nos. 2 to 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, as considered by the learned trial court, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal as passed by the learned trial court. This S.L.A is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission. Jay/ (C. M. Prasad, J.)