IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.16 of 2010 NATHUNI SHAHU, S/o. late Ram Lakhan Shahu, r/o. Village- Raghunathpur (Sadipur), P.S. Bangra, District- Samastipur. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Rajendra Shahu, S/o. late Baldeo Shahu, 3. Pyare Lal Shahu, S/o. late Ram Kishun Shahu, 4. Paltan Shahu, S/o. Pyare Lal Shahu, 5. Amiri Lall Shahu, S/o. Pyare Lal Shahu, All r/o. Village- Manpura, P.S. Bangra, District- Samastipur. ----------- 06. 05.07.2010 This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.07.2009 as passed by Sri Deshmukh, J.M. 2nd Class, Samastipur in C.R. No.19 of 1995/T.R. No.29 of 2009, whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 were tried for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 447, 427 & 379 of the I.P.C. have been acquitted. The prosecution case was that on 20.01.1995 at 8.00 a.m. the O.Ps. variously armed with lathi, spear, spade, axe, and sickle came to the complainant’s land and forcibly cutaway one Palm tree. It was also alleged that on complainant’s protest they assaulted him with fists and slaps and ket him confined at the place during the occurrence. The motive for occurrence was stated to be due to grudge arising out of a previous case filed 2 by the complainant. The complainant mentioned the details of P.O. land mentioning its boundaries. While recording the order of acquittal, learned trial-court considered that the complainant denied about his relationship with the accused/O.P. but in paras-3 to 6 of cross-examination he admitted that the accused/O.P. were his relatives. In para-19 he admitted that he has got land dispute with the O.Ps. The learned trial-court considered the complainant’s evidence at para-44 and 61 that he mentioned the boundary different than the boundary mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, a suspicion arose about the actual place of occurrence as stated by the complainant. Learned trial-court considered that in para-72 the complainant denied about any partition between himself and accused/O.Ps. but in view of Taksisnama as filed before the Court it appeared that division of property had taken place between the complainant and the accused/O.Ps. Due to these infirmities in complainant’s evidence the learned trial-court did not place reliance on his evidence. 3 Learned trial-court considered that the P.Ws.2 & 3 were chance witnesses. It is also considered that complainant has stated that Ikri was taken away by Rajendra Sah and Raj kumar Sah but according to P.W.2 it was taken away by Raj Kumar Sah and Amrit Sah. Thus, there was contradiction on this point. It was also considered that P.W.3, who was Tea Stall Keeper claimed to be an eyewitness and he named the accused/O.Ps. but in para-3 of the cross-examination he stated that he came to know about the names of the O.Ps. at his Tea Stall. Learned trial-court also considered that in paras- 6 & 7 the P.W.2 gave a different boundary than that given by the complainant. It was also considered that the P.W.3 says that he had visited the P.O. village almost 50 times but he was unable to say about the name of any villages other than the accused/O.Ps. It was further considered that the P.W.3 at para-7 stated that the P.O. land was empty/barren, which created suspicion that he had ever seen the P.O. land. On these grounds the veracity of the witnesses was doubted. The trial-court further 4 considered that the P.W.4 claimed to be an eyewitness but in paras-36 & 37 he admitted that he and his father had a talk with the complainant regarding the incident on the date of occurrence and they had learnt about the incident. It was also considered that P.W.4 admitted that he had earlier deposed against the accused in another case and thus due to these infirmities the P.W.4 was also disbelieved by the trial-court. Thus considering the infirmities and the contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses adduced, the trial-court did not come to believe the veracity of complainant’s case and recorded the order of acquittal. On consideration of evidence as discussed by the trial-court in the judgment and considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, finding no merit in the impugned judgment, this S.L.A. is dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)