IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.39 of 2009 NESAR AHAMAD S/O HAJI HAKIM SHAH MOLHAMMAD, R/O HARDASPUR (BAMHAUR KHAS) P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHEO MURTI SINGH 3. MARKANDEAY SINGH 4. SRI KRISHNA SINGH ALL SON OF LATE CHATRUDHUN SINGH 5. RAM RAJ SINGH S/O LATE BADARI SINGH 6. BIPIN SINGH S/O SHEO MURTI SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF GAMURANA, P.S.- RAMGARH, DISTRICT- KAIMUR ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite parties :- Mr. B. P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate ------------- 6 25/07/2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.1.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.5, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2006/30 of 2008 whereby the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted. The petitioner has filed a complaint petition saying that a land was purported to be sold for that oral agreement was made and advance of Rs. 50,000/- was paid. Subsequently the accused persons played fraud and resiled from their agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is consistent evidence regarding ingredients of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the opposite parties but 2 the appellate court has not appreciated the evidence and relied upon the minor contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and acquitted the accused persons. I have analyzed the judgment of both the courts and the reasons given by the appellate court is of vital contradictions between the evidences of the wife and son of the complainant. The complainant’s wife has stated that the possession of the land was given but the son who has been made witness by the complainant himself has contradicted the said fact and stated that his father was never given possession of the land. The complainant was required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Once a doubt is created then the benefit of the same is to go to accused not to the complainant. The appellate court has considered all the evidences and has arrived at right conclusion. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment. It needs no interference. Accordingly, this application is rejected. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)