IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.77 of 2007 HARI MOHAN CHOUDHARY @ HARI MOHAN SANGAHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. S.N.Singh,Advocate& Mr.Sanjeev Kumar,Advocate. For the Respondents/Opposite Parties : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey. 04. 19.02.2009 Heard both sides. The petitioner seeks liberty of this court to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2007 passed by the IIIrd, Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachhia in Cr. Appeal No. 84/2005 whereby the accuseds/opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted of all the charges punishable under Sections 417, 420,467,468,471 and 120B of the Penal Code It appears for an occurrence allegedly committed on 20.03.1996 a complaint was lodged on 18.02.1997. In the complaint, the allegation was that the opposite parties who are nephews in relation to the old widow, namely, Sumitra Devi, got her L.T.I. forcibly on a paper which was subsequently converted into a deed of gift. The accuseds (opposite parties herein) were put on trial and convicted by the learned trial court in trial No. 1372/2004. The accuseds (opposite parties herein) being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction preferred the appeal ( Cr. APP. No. 84/2005), wherein, the order impugned has been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly accepted that a suit was subsequently filed for setting aside the deed of gift. This court in the background of aforesaid fact perused 2 the judgment rendered by the learned lower appellate court. Paragraph Nos. 4,5,6,7 set out the reasons for not accepting the prosecution case even if the allegations are accepted. This court would like to quote paragraph no.8 of the impugned judgment which reads thus: “So far factual aspects are concerned Sumitra Devi was about 90 years of her age at the time of alleged occurrence and she had under gone cataract operation and according to her she used to live at her matrimonial place jointly with P.W.1 and P.W.3 and some of the appellants were her nephews who obtained forcibly her L.T.I. on blank stamp paper with a view to grab her landed property which she had succeeded though her father. The prosecution was to stand upon his own legs and had to prove that P.W.6 did not put her L.T.I. on her own accord. According to complaint petition P.W.1 is only eye witness to the alleged forcible obtaining of L.T.I. of P.W.6. P.W.6 has said in para 4 of her cross examination that appellants pressed her mouth, caught hold of her arms and legs and forcibly took her L.T.I. in presence of P.W.1. But P.W.1 has not supported these set of facts in his testimony. P.W.2 Jyotish Sangahi has said that on 20.3.96 while P.W.6 was going her home she came across to him on road in front of her house and narrated about occurrence in presence of P.W. 1 but P.W.1 has said in para 19 of his evidence that on 20.3.96 no person of Makandpur was present when they caught Tata Maxi for her village and only P.W.4 Balram Choudhary and P.W.5 Rajendra Choudhary had come across them to whom he had 3 narrated incident. P.W.1 is said eye witness to the alleged occurrence but he has been unable to say that whether L.T.I. was taken from carbon paper or kajal and he is also unable to say that on which side of paper it was taken. P.W.1 has admitted that he did not inform it to police at any place. He had admitted that P.W.6 again executed sale deed of same land to Ram Tirth Choudhary on 25.1.97. This case has been filed after 25.1.97 therefore in event of failure of prosecution case defence version would be tenable.” Having reflected over the matter thoughtfully, this court is of the view, that no patent illegality has been committed in consideration of the matter by the learned appellate court. No case for interference is made out. The application seeking leave stands rejected. This court, is, however, inclined to observe that end result of the present criminal litigation shall not enure to the benefit of either party to the suit. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)