IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.15 of 2008 DHARAM DAS PRASAD Versus 1. BIJOY KUMAR SAH 2. AJAY KUMAR SAH 3. MANOJ KUMAR SAH 4. ARUN KUMAR SAH 5. DOLLY DEVI 6. SUNITA DEVI ----------- 2 06.01.2009 The appellants have approached this Court seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13th December, 2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. I, Munger in Cr. Appeal no. 151/2004. It appears that opposite parties were tried on the basis of a complaint filed by the present petitioner and they were convicted under various sections of Indian Penal Code including sections 448, 427 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. The opposite parties herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Munger, preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 151/2004. By the impugned judgment, the lower Appellate Court has acquitted the appellants. In paragraph no. 8 of the judgment, the Lower Appellate Court considered the matter which is as follows: “From the critical analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is crystal clear that there is no separate allegation against any of the accused that what he did individually regarding beating and also not alleged specifically that on what part of the body of the injured has been - 2 - assaulted by whom. Further as per the evidence on record, the alleged injured who has been sent by the police to Sadar hospital, Munger for their treatment and examination of their injuries by the doctor. There is evidence on record that the alleged injured witness went to Sadar Hospital and where the doctor examined their injuries and given to the treatment for the same but the doctor has not been examined by the prosecution and also there is no material on record that any treatment is given to the alleged injured by the doctor and under such circumstances case u/w 323 I.P.C. failed. This view has been supported by the Hon’ble Patna High Court Ranchi Bench reported in B.L.J.R. 1979-page 578 in which it is stated that charge u/w 379 not established charge u/s 323 for causing bleeding injuries to Forest guard also not established for want of medical evidence-evidence- Charge u/s 353 for using criminal force for rescuing arrested person also not established as charge u/s 323 having failed.” This Court on consideration of the materials on record including the judgment, which is sought to be assailed, is of the view that sufficient and cogent reasons have been assigned by the Lower Appellate Court in acquitting the opposite parties. There is no good ground for interference in the judgment and to allow the prayer of the petitioner who preferred against the said order/judgment. The application seeking leave stands rejected. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J ) - 3 -