IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.42 of 2010 SUMESHWAR KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 27.08.2010 This S.L.A. was heard at the stage of admission. The O.P.Nos. 2 to 11 were tried on the charge under Sections 452, 147, 323, 342 and 379 IPC on the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant Sunaina Devi who alleged that the O.P.Nos. 2 to 11 being variously armed, trespassed into her house and they assaulted Parmeshwar Kumar and Someshwar Kumar, sons with Lathi and slaps and that appellant Ashok Bhagat took away a box containing clothes and gold necklace worth Rs.10,000/-, Dharm Bhagat took away steel box, containing Rs.10,000/- (cash) and other O.Ps. took away utensils etc. worth Rs.3,000/-. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 22nd May 1999 and a complaint was filed on 29th May 1999 and the delay was explained that the complainant had approached the Police, but her case was not taken there. As many as five witnesses were examined by the petitioner-complainant. The learned trial court considered the evidence of witnesses. The evidence of P.W.1 as adduced before framing of charge was not found acceptable in view of the fact that he had not been produced for cross-examination. As to the evidence of P.W.2, the trial court considered that this witness, who was a chance witness claimed that he had seen the occurrence when he had gone to demand the price of clothes he had sold to 2 the complainant, but in cross-examination this witness admitted that the clothes had been sold in the month of June, therefore, the learned trial court disbelieved this witness on the ground that when clothes had been sold in the month of June, how this witness could have gone to the complainant’s house in the month of May for demanding the price of clothe. As to the P.W.3, that witness claimed to have seen the occurrence but in his cross-examination he admitted that on the day of occurrence, he had remained in his house all through and he had not gone out of his house, therefore, the learned trial court found that when the witness had remained in his house and he had no occasion to go out of the house, he was not believable on the point that he had been to the P.O. to see the occurrence alleged. So far P.W.4 is concerned, he was Bhagina of the complainant and he admitted that one of the accused (O.P. Misri Bhagat) had filed a criminal case against Parmeshwar Bhagat and Someshwar Bhagat , the sons of the complainant and in that case they had been sent to jail. Referring to Annexure-A, it was pointed out before the trial court during the trial that Someshwar Bhagat and Parmeshwar Bhagat were said to have assaulted O.P. Dilip Singh with sword and Lathi causing injury on the neck. Learned counsel also submitted that P.W.4 admitted that the P.O. was a Parti land i.e. a vacant peace of land, whereas according to the complainant, the P.O. is inside the house where the O.Ps. are said to have committed theft of articles after trespassing into the house. As to the last witness (P.W.5), the 3 learned trial court considered that this witness was not able to say names of any of the accused. Besides this, the learned trial court further considered about the delay in filing of the case and on consideration of all the infirmities in the case of prosecution the judgment of acquittal was recorded. In the facts and circumstances, as above, I find nothing to interfere with the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned trial court. In the result the S.L.A is dismissed at this stage. Jay/ (C. M . Prasad, J.)