IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.47 of 2010 RAMPARI DEVI, W/o. Ram Udgar Paswan, r/o. Village- Kuridangi, P.S. Thakurganj, District- Kishanganj. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Rajdeo Singh, B.D.O. Thakurganj, S/o. not known, 3. Ram Balak Paswan, S/o. Kamal Paswan, O.P. Nos.2 & 3 r/o. village- Thakurganj, P.S. Thakurganj, Kishanganj. ----------- 02. 29.06.2010 This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned C.J.M., Kishanganj on 20.04.2010 in Case No. C483 of 2000/T.R. No. 45 of 2010, whereby the O.Ps. were acquitted of the charges under Sections 323 & 503 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The O.P. No.2 Rajdeo Singh, is the Block Development Officer and O.P. No.3 Ram Balak Paswan is a private person. The case of the complainant was that on 12.05.2000 the O.Ps. went to inspect the Indira Aawas allotted to the complainant regarding the quality of construction and that during inspection when the complainant complained about the deficiency in the quality of roof O.P.2 Rajdeo Singh assaulted her 4-5 times with shoe and also abused her by caste name. The complainant’s further case was 2 that when her husband came to save her, he was also assaulted by the O.P. by means of fists and slaps and that the O.Ps. went away threatening the petitioner/complainant to implicate them in false case. It has not been shown if any case has been instituted against the petitioner/complainant by the O.Ps. While recording the order of acquittal the learned trial Court considered that the P.W.1 who was examined as an eyewitness stated that the complainant was assaulted by fists and slaps. Thus, the witness contradicted the complainant’s version that she was assaulted 4-5 times by shoe. It was also considered that the complainant states about the presence of her husband at the time of occurrence and that the husband had tried to save her but this witness (P.W.1) does not say anything about presence of the husband there. Due to these infirmities the trial-court did not find this witness a reliable witness. The P.W.2 Ram Udgar Paswan, the husband of the complainant claimed in his 3 examination-in-chief that when he went to save his wife-complainant, he was assaulted with fists and slaps but his further evidence in Para-10 of his deposition showed that he was not a witness to the occurrence and he had falsely come to say about the occurrence. Learned trial-court considered para-10 of the evidence of P.W.2 where he stated that at 4.00 to 4.30 O’Clock when he came after pulling Thela he found that there was a crowd near his house and on query he learnt that some people had come there for enquiry but no Hakim (Officer) was present there and that within ten minutes the crowd dispersed. Thus the complainant’s husband (P.W.2) is not an eyewitness but he has came after the occurrence and he did not find any of the two accused/O.P. present there but he has falsely tried to become a witness and deposed as an eyewitness. The P.Ws.3 & 4 were examined as eyewitnesses and they tried to support the prosecution story in their examination-in-chief but their testimony was demolished in the cross- 4 examination when they stated that the complainant Rampari Devi had told them about the occurrence and on such learning they had adduced their evidence. The learned trial-court also considered that P.W.4 stated at para-7 of her cross-examination that the occurrence had taken place at the house of B.D.O. Sahab thus the prosecution story about the occurrence at the house of the complainant is demolished. The P.W.5, the petitioner/complainant tried to support the prosecution case but she did not say about any specific words from which the causing of humiliation could be shown. She denied that her son Parmanand Paswan has been allotted another Indra Aawas in his name. Learned trial-court considered that the defence produced Exts-A & A/1, through which it was shown that the complainant’s husband and her son both were allotted separate Indira Aawas, though under rules one Indira Aawas they were entitled for one unit. Learned trial-court considered the submission on behalf of the defence that the 5 complainant was trying to get allotment of one extra Indira Aawas in her name and when the O.P. Rajdeo Singh, the B.D.O. was not agreeable to accord such favour to her, the complaint was filed as a pressure tactics. Thus considering the infirmities and contradictions in the case of prosecution the learned trial-court did not find the prosecution case proved beyond doubt and the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 were acquitted. On consideration of the facts and circumstances and the materials as considered by the learned trial-court, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned trial- court. Thus, finding no merit this application is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)