IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.21 of 2010 RAM PYARE GOPE, S/o. late Balkishun Gope, r/o. Village- Raksa, P.S. Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda. ------- Complainant/petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. Sudhir Gope, S/o. Kapil Gope, 3. Harakhu Gope, S/o. late Bundi Gope, Both r/o. Village- Shivdat Bigha, P.S. Ekangarsarai, District Nalanda -------- Accused/Respondents. ----------- 03. 19.05.2010 This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.01.2010 as passed under Complaint Case No.518C of 2005 by the learned S.D.J.M., Hilsa at Nalanda, whereby O.P. Nos.2 & 3, who were tried for the charge under Section 392 of I.P.C., have been acquitted of the charge. The complainant’s case was that on 03.09.2004 at 10 a.m., the petitioner/complainant taking cash money Rs.10,000/- with him had gone out to Hilsa Cattle Market for purchasing a cattle but he could not find any suitable cattle, hence, he was returning with the money and that when he reached near Nardaha Khandha, the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 appeared there. Sudhir Gope and Harkha Gope put pistol on him and demanded money and Sudhir Gope snatched 2 Rs.10,000/- which was kept in the Doda wrapped round his waist. The O.P. Harku Gope snatched Rs.250/- from the upper pocket of his Kurta. The petitioner/complainant named four witnesses namely, Ram Naresh Singh, Pukaru Singh, Janki Gope and Chandarik Paswan who were said to have seen the occurrence. While recording the order of acquittal the learned S.D.J.M. considered that none of the four witnesses named as eyewitness in the complaint petition were examined by the complainant before the trial-court. It was also considered that complainant examined himself as P.W.4 and he examined three other witnesses namely, P.W.1 Manoj Prasad, P.W. 2 Anuj Kumar who were petitioner’s son and P.w.3 Ram Briksh Gope, who was his (petitioner’s) Bahnoi (brother-in-law). Learned trial-court considered that there was also discrepancy about the time of occurrence inasmuch as in the cross-examination the petitioner/complainant (P.W.4) stated that the date of 3 occurrence was 06.09.2004 but in the complaint petition the same was mentioned as 04.09.2004. Learned trial-court considered that the actual four witnesses who were said to be the eyewitnesses and also named in the complaint petition were not examined by the witnesses and any explanation was not furnished for their non-examination. It was also considered that the witnesses examined by the complainant were his sons and Bahnoi but they were not named in the complaint petition. Had they been the actual and truthful witness to the occurrence they must have had been named in the complaint petition. The learned trial-court considered that the witnesses examined by the petitioner/complainant subsequently managed to support the prosecution story. The learned trial-court considered at page-6 of his judgment that the petitioner/complainant had stated in his evidence that at the time of occurrence two passers by namely, Ram Briksha and Ram Naresh Singh had come to the P.O. This Ram Briksh is none else than the Bahnoi of the petitioner/complainant, 4 but he was not named in the complaint. The other i.e., Ram Naresh Singh was an independent witness but he too was not produced by the complainant and there is no explanation for his non-examination. Thus, the witnesses named in the complaint petition and who were stated to be the natural and probable witnesses were not examined and in their place the complainant examined his sons and Bahnoi, who were not named in the complaint petition. Considering all these facts and also the discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses as discussed the learned trial-court recorded the order of acquittal. In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to make interference with the order of acquittal as recorded by the trial-court. Accordingly, the special leave to appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)