IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.43 of 2010 Gayanti Devi, W/O. Gayanti Devi, r/o. Goria Toli, Behind Kutir Hotel, Station Road, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. Binod Roy, 3. Gopal Prasad @ Gopal Rai, Both sons of Ramjatan Rai, 4. Anjani Devi, w/o. Gopal Prasad @ Gopal Roy, 5. Shanti Devi, D/o. Vinod Roy, All r/o. Village- Goria Toli, Behind Kutir Hotel, Station Road, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. & ORS ----------- 02. 28.06.2010 This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 30.04.2010 passed by Smt. Rajani Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.2064(c) of 2004, whereby the O.P. Nos.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the charge under Section 147, 323, 341, 452, 379 of the I.P.C. The O.P. No.2 to 5 along with three others who were minors and whose cases were sent to Juvenile Justice Board are said to be the Gotia of Gayanti Devi. The complainant filed her complaint on 30.08.2004 alleging that on 11.08.2004 at 3.00 p.m. while she was at her grocery shop, the O.Ps. 2 to 5 and three others (whose case were sent up to the Juvenile Justice Board) came there and they 2 assaulted her and took away Rs.7,000/- from the cash box and they also damaged and spoiled articles of Rs.10,000/- in the shop. Six witnesses were examined by the complainant. P.W.1 was complainant’s son, a boy aged about 8 years, who stated that blood was coming from the head and leg of his mother. The learned trial court did not find this witness as a competent witness in view of the fact that there was no such case of prosecution. The evidence of the P.W.1 in the trial-court’s judgment indicates that he could not say in detail about the occurrence. The P.W.2, the complainant’s husband stated that the occurrence had taken place on 18.08.2004, whereas complainant claimed that incident occurred on 11.08.2004. Thus, material contradiction in date of occurrence was found by the trial court. In his evidence the P.W.2 also stated that he was not present at the time of occurrence. Thus he is not an eyewitness. Learned trial-court also considered that the P.W.3 simply stated that the 3 complainant was speaking that accused persons taken money from the shop. The P.W.4 was examined as witness to the occurrence but he could not state on which part of body the complainant had received injury and this witness was also unable to say about the boundary of the shop. The learned trial-court considered the evidence of the complainant Gayanti Devi (P.W.5) and mentioned that she stated that she had received fracture injury and had also gone to the doctor for treatment but any paper regarding examination of such injury or treatment was not produced in Court. Besides this the learned trial- court also considered that the occurrence was said to have taken place on 11.08.2004 but the complaint was filed on 30.08.2004 and thus there was inordinate delay in the filing of the complaint and there was no reasonable explanation for it. Therefore, the learned trial-court considered that there was every chance of introduction of embellishment, fabrication and afterthought in the case of the prosecution. 4 Considering as such the learned trial-court found the complainant’s case not proved beyond doubt and also acquitted the O.Ps. 2 to 5 in view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the view taken by the trial-court in acquitting the accused persons. Thus, finding no merit in this application, it is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)