CRIMINAL APPEAL No.13 OF 1993 (U/S) Appeal against the judgment and order dated 02.09.1992 passed in Complaint Case No. 188(C) of 1986, Tr. No. 101 of 1992 by Sri Satya Prakash Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Arrah. 1. SURESH MISHRA, S/o Late Mukti Nath Mishra, Resident of Village:- Jamira, Police Station-Arrah Muffasil, District-Bhojpur. ……..(Appellant) Versus 1. BIGAN DUSADH. 2. Jang Dusadh. Both sons of Dukhit Dusadh, resident of Village- Jamira, Police Station-Arrah Muffasil, District- Bhojpur at Arrah. ……… (Respondents) ---------- For the Appellant : - Mr. Murari Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents :- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************** Anjana Prakash, J. This appeal has been filed against the acquittal of the opposite parties passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Arrah in Complaint Case No. 188(C) of 1986, Tr. No. 101 of 1992 for the offences under Sections 427, 504, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the complainant is that on 15.12.1986 the accused persons came upon the lands of the appellant and abused them and also assaulted the informant and destroyed the crops grown by the complainant due to which damage to - 2 - the crops worth Rs. 100/- resulted by such acts. After the examination of the complainant and the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken against the accused persons under Sections 427, 504, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. On behalf of the complainant as many as seven witnesses were examined but all of them had been disbelieved for one reason or the other. The trial court while appreciating the evidence noted material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. The place of occurrence was also seriously doubted as per the narration of the prosecution witnesses who failed to prove the same. On the contrary the defence witnesses through its documents created a reasonable doubt about the possession of the lands in question. After having gone through the evidence of both the parties the trial court seriously doubted the factum of possession of the prosecution on the said lands. The trial court concluded that the case had been filed only to harass the accused persons and in fact it was a malicious prosecution. Having gone through the judgment of acquittal and lower court records, I find that PW 1, - 3 - PW 2 and PW 4 are highly interested witnesses whereas PW 3 has materially contradicted the prosecution case, PW 5 is the Doctor who has merely proved the injury report whereas PW 6 is a formal witness having proved some documents. On going through the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 there is no gainsaying that they are interested witnesses and have given an inconsistent account of the prosecution case. Most importantly the place of occurrence has not been fixed by the witnesses. The factum of their possession upon the lands is also in serious dispute. Under the circumstances, this court is firmly of the view that the judgment of acquittal needs no interference and resultantly the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 30th November, 2009 NAFR/Vikash. (Anjana Prakash, J.)