IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.1209 of 2010 SIKANDAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2 16.12.2010 Heard at the stage of admission. This application is for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal as passed by the Lower Appellate Court, the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa (Nalanda) in Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 2009/Trial No.1 of 2010/147 whereby the O.P. No.2 has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code by reversing the judgment of conviction as passed by the trial court under these two counts with sentence of due admonition. The case of the petitioner/complainant was that while he was returning from Hilsa railway station to his house and while he was in the way towards South of the station, the O.P. No.2 intercepted him and asked him as to why he (applicant) was not withdrawing the case filed against him and that on protest the O.P. No.2 assaulted him and snatched Titan wrist watch. The applicant is said to have been taken to hospital where he was treated, F.I.R. was lodged and on submission of charge sheet, the trial proceeded and it ended with judgment of conviction and sentence as passed by learned trial Magistrate. It was upon the appeal filed by the O.P. No.2 that the learned Lower Appellate Court examined the evidence critically and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, came to find that the charges were not proved beyond doubt and therefore, the O.P. No.2 was acquitted of the charges. 2 As many as three witnesses were examined by the complainant during trial. P.W.2 was the complainant/applicant. P.W.1 was the applicant’s brother and P.W.3 was the Investigating Officer of the case. While examining and considering the evidence, the learned appellate court found that there was enmity prevailing between the parties in view of the previous litigation pending between them. It was considered that the P.W.1 stated that the occurrence took place towards South of railway station but the P.W.2/complainant stated that the occurrence took place on the railway line at railway station. Thus, there was serious contradiction on the point of sites of the P.O. and it also raised doubt over the testimony of the P.W.1 who had claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. The learned appellate court also discarded the testimony of the P.W.1 on the ground that the P.W.3, the I.O. had stated that the P.W.1 described before him the occurrence as a hearsay witness and he had not claimed to be an eye-witness before him. The learned appellate court also considered that the complainant/applicant stated in his evidence that there were 20-25 persons with the O.P. No.2 at the time of occurrence but he did not say that any of those 20-25 persons had assaulted him or they did any kind of overt act in the occurrence. Learned court below considered that the complainant/applicant was adding things beyond his complaint petition to make the offence serious. Since the parties were inimical to each other, the learned 3 Lower Appellate Court gave a critical and a meticulous consideration to the evidence on record and it did not feel satisfied about the prosecution case being proved beyond doubt. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed by the court below, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment as passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, finding no merit, this application is dismissed at the stage of admission. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-