IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA NO.24 OF 2008 NARESH RAM, SON OF LATE RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARUATTA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT JAMUI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHOLA RAM, SON OF NAGO RAM 3. BINDA RAM, SON OF LATE JULMI RAM 4. MAKHNI DEVI, WIFE OF BHOLA RAM 5. BHARAT RAM, SON OF LATE BABU RAM 6. ANIK RAM, SON OF BINDA RAM 7. GOPAL RAM, SON OF BINDA RAM 8. MANNU RAM, SON OF BANGALI RAM 2 TO 8 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARUATTA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT JAMUI …………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******* 7 06/05/2009 Nobody appears on behalf of the applicant. Yesterday, this case was heard and learned Counsel for the applicant had made arguments on behalf of the applicant. This SLA has been filed against the order acquitting the respondents 2 to 8 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. There is a land dispute between the parties for which a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been initiated. The Court below has considered the allegations and the depositions of the witnesses and rejected each and every witness on good grounds. It has been stated in the judgment that the witnesses contradict each other on salient features of the prosecution case. From the evidence of PW 2, it appears that the respondents have also been assaulted in this case 2 and they have also been examined by the doctors for the injuries sustained. After considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Trial Court has also considered that a counter case was filed for the same occurrence in which the informant and some others were convicted. After considering all aspects of the case, the Trial Court has rejected the evidence of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the applicant. Another aspect is that the Trial Court has doubted the injury report. The alleged injured persons were examined by a private doctor. The doctor has not been examined to prove the injury report and on the basis of the aforesaid fact, the Trial Court has disbelieved the allegation that the respondents have inflicted injuries on the applicant and others. After considering the judgment, I find that no ground has been made out for interference of this Court with the impugned judgment which has been passed on sound reasonings. This SLA is accordingly, dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )