IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.4 of 2008 Rajnath Prasad son of Late Faguni Sah, resident of village- Piro, P.S. Piro, District- Bhojpur …Complainant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Shri Nath Rai, 3. Yogendra Rai, 4. Ravindra Rai & 5. Sheojee Rai No.2 son of Ram Sakal Rai and opposite party nos. 3 to 5 sons of Shri Nath Rai. All residents of village, P.O. and P.S.-Piro, District- Bhojpur. ….Accused/Opposite parties ----------- 5/ 20.04.2009 Heard. This application for grant of special leave has been preferred against the judgment dated 14.11.2007 passed by Sri Braj Mohan Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ara, in Complaint Case No.298 of 2002 (T.R. No.938 of 2007) by which the learned court below acquitted the accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 5 from the charges levelled against them. A complaint petition was filed under sections 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in which it is alleged that the boundary wall of the complainant was demolished by the opposite party nos.2 to 5. No information with respect to the occurrence was given in the police station on the date on which the occurrence took place, rather, the complainant gave information on the following day of the occurrence i.e. on 19.2.2002. The police conducted enquiry and submitted a report under section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal - 2 - Procedure against the accused persons in the court in the court of S.D.M., Piro. Thereafter, a written complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur. During the course of trial, four witnesses were examined in the case. The complainant has stated in his evidence that he was going to meet someone when he heard the sound of his wall falling down. Similarly, other witnesses have stated that number of persons had gathered outside the house of the complainant. The court below after examining the witnesses has found that all the witnesses are the dealers in kerosene oil, who used to take their supply of kerosene oil from the complainant, who is a wholesale dealer. None of the neighbours of the petitioner-complainant, with whom the complainant is said to have good relationship, have come forward to support the prosecution case, rather, the persons, who are highly interested and have business connection with the complainant, have somewhat supported that some sort of occurrence took place. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the court below has come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the charges and acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 from the charges under sections 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code with a finding that the complainant could not prove the case “beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt.” - 3 - On perusal of the judgment of the court below, I find that the reasoning given by the learned court below are reasonable and can not be said to be perverse. In the result, this S.L.A. is dismissed having no merit. JA/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)