IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.62 of 2007 MANJU DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 28.7.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The complainant has filed this special leave to appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal of the opposite parties, in a case under sections 323, 379 and 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. She alleged that while she was returning from sasural with her brother, four accused persons dragged her out, and assaulted her as well as her brother and snatched a watch worth Rs.400/- and other articles worth Rs.15000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the complaint itself, that the litigation was going on between the parties from before. One Govind Sah who is father –in- law of the complainant also deposed that he was also sitting in the bus. But it was nowhere mentioned in the complaint petition that he was also sitting in the bus. The trial court has found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are suspicious and contrary on material points. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no material to interfere with the impugned judgment. As such leave is refused. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused persons are habitual miscreants and they time and again involved in such acts of loot and arson. - 2 - It goes without saying that in such situation it would be open to the complainant to file complaint in this regard. AnilK.Sinha (S.P.Singh,J.)