IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.33 of 2007 MAHENDRA RAUT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD ABBAS ----------- 6. 06.01.2009 Heard both sides. The petitioner who is the complainant of the case giving rise to Sessions Trial No.215 of 1996, has approached this Court seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. It appears that there were two sets of accused in the case. The police personnel forms one set, whereas the present opp.parties and two others formed another. Two of them have died during the pendency of the trial and, as such, in that category only accused (opposite party no.2) survives. This Court thoughtfully considered the submission and minutely perused the judgment. The learned trial court while acquitting the present opposite party no.2 has recorded thus: “It appears just natural that the police might have arrested the deceased and the other witnesses of this case, and would have tortured in P.S. resulting the death of the father of the complainant. But it does not appear probable than this accused might have assaulted the deceased and the other persons in the campus of the P.S. where the deceased was brutally assaulted and later on died. Because the police personnels as alleged were beating the deceased and others mostly witnesses of this case in P.S. where no one is allowed to go and beat the arrested persons. Questions arises as to why this accused would beat this deceased and others when the police personnels are abundantly in police - 2 - station?. This part of the occurrence that the accused Md. Abbas assaulted the father of the informant/complainant appears to unbelievable, improbable and no credence can be given to it. More-ever, this complaint case was filed on 26.8.75 where as the case of this accused Md. Abbas was instituted on 14.8.75 about 10 to 12 days prior. The story of the complainant is not that of dacoity being committed by Officer-in-charge and constable. The complaint case does say like this. It is cryptic in nature. In the petition of complaint it has not been mentioned as to why the police committed this type of handedness. Later on the prosecution has developed the story of dacoity. It may be true that the police personnels would have committed such type of offence as alleged by the complaint because two police personnel were brutally assaulted and they were being brought to the S.P. Samastipur for their committing dacoity of vengeance and retaliation the police might have committed this sort of offence. But the involvement of this accused Md. Abbas also not appears to be believable in the facts and circumstances of the case” From the submission made at the Bar it further appears that most of the witnesses were accuseds in the case lodged by the present opp.party no.2 several days before the filing of the present complaint. In the light of the fact noted above, this Court finds no justification to permit the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned judgment. The application stands dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )