IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.21 of 2011 RAM BIHARI RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 29.03.2011. Heard Sri Ram Suresh Rai, learned senior counsel on this Special Leave Application to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22nd January, 2011 passed by Sri Krishna Mohan Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Buxar in Complaint case No. C-40 of 1993, Tr.No.313 of 2011. It was alleged that the accused persons who were musclemen were demanding extortion-money from the complainant who had obtained settlement in respect of a piece of land pertaining to Khata no.523, Plot no.2003(old) measuring one acre twenty seven decimals which was an agricultural land in nature and was within the municipal area at of Dumraon Municipality. On account of being refused to pay up the demanded some of money, the accused persons damaged the boundary wall existing on the land which was erected by the complainant and that occurrence took place on 1.2.1993 and thereby caused damage to the tune of Rs.2000/-. 2 After usual enquiry into the complaint petition, the accused persons were summoned and they were put on trial. It appears that six witnesses were examined by the complainant out of whom P.Ws. 5 and 6 were formal witnesses. Other witnesses supported the facts of the case and as such the story of the complainant, the complainant examined himself as witness no.4. The trial Magistrate evaluated the class of every witness and noted, as may appear from paragraph-12 of the judgment, that complainant’s witness nos.1 and 2 were chance witnesses as they were claiming per chance being present on or around the place of occurrence so as to witnesses the occurrence. The court below has considered the reasons which are assigned by P.Ws. 1 and 2 for their respective presence at the place of occurrence and has gone to discard them as a witness on reasons which appear in that particular paragraph. The reason was that P.W.1 was a resident of another village situated in another police station and the reason assigned for his presence was not acceptable to the court below. Likewise, 3 P.W.2 was claiming himself to pass by the seen of occurrence while he was going to purchase a buffalo, but when cross-examined he was neither pointing out as to what place he was going to for purchasing the animal. However, during his submission, the learned senior counsel has controverted the above finding and that appears correct, for, the witness has given the name of the village to which he was proceeding to purchase a buffalo. But, what this court finds is that the complainant was a co-villager of P.W.2 which has been admitted by P.W.2 in his cross-examination(paragraph-3) and it has been suggested to him clearly that on account of being interested with his villager he was coming to depose falsely against the accused persons. From the evidence of P.W.2 what further transpires is that there were certain proceedings on account of there being some dispute for the land which has been the bone of contention between the parties and that could be the back drop of initiating the prosecution. As regards P.W.3 Suresh Singh, the court has rejected his evidence being that of 4 an unnatural witness. The copy of the evidence of P.W.3 appears at page-31 of the present brief and it is admitted by P.W.3 that the distant between Dumraon and his village was within five kilometers and when one peruses the evidence of this witness in pasragraph-6 it could be found that he started to Dumraon from his village by his tractor at 12 A.M. and he reached at about 2 P.M., i.e., after two hours by driving his tractor. The time lag which has been stated by P.W.3 in traveling a distance of about five kilometers by a vehicle does not carry well with this court also and on this reasoning alone the evidence of P.W.3 could be discarded. The other reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.3 is that he has given the reasons for being on or around the seen of occurrence which was of going to Dumraon for purchasing diesel. But, when one comes to paragraph-7 of his cross-examination one may find that he had changed the reason by stating that he was getting his pump-set repaired somewhere near the place of occurrence. These two statements of P.W.3 do not go hand in hand as regards the reason for 5 the witness being present on or around the seen of occurrence. This witness has also indicated that there was a title suit pending between the parties for the particular land and before that there had been 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding also. The witness has pointed out that the present applicant-complainant was the member probably of the Bihar Public Service Commission and this Court is of the view that might be for putting a criminal pressure in order to subjugating the respondents on the pending litigations that this case might have been filed. Besides, the above reasons, I further upheld the reason recorded by the learned trial court that it was a case indicating as if the boundary wall of the disputed land had been demolished substantially by the accused persons. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that if this were, so then it would have been appropriate that the complainant should have approached the local police so that there had been objective findings brought before the court below in the form of evidence of the police who could have inspected the place of occurrence. The 6 explanation which was offered for not approaching the police for registering a case in the court below has also been offered before this court and this court finds the view recorded by the court below on that point reasonable. These are some of the frailties which were identified by the learned trial Judge and also by this court. Regard being had to the above findings, the court finds no merit in the present petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal and the same is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)