IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.24 of 2010 MANO DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Faiz Ahmad, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Adv. ---------------- 4. 20.07.2010 This is the application for leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 21.1.2010 of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui as passed in Complaint No. 119(C) of 1989/Tr. No. 218 of 2010 whereunder the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 were tried for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the I.P.C. and on trial they were acquitted of the charges. The petitioner/complainant filed complaint No. 119C of 1989 alleging that the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 came to her house and persuaded her for sterilization on the assurance that a cow will be given to her. On this assurance, they took her to neighbouring village for such purpose but instead of taking her for sterilization she was taken to registry office and they persuaded her to give wrong statement in the registry office and on the basis of such wrong statement, a forged deed of registration was prepared and her L.T.I. was fraudulently obtained on registration papers. The petitioner/complainant alleged that subsequently she learnt that she was misrepresented as the wife of Murat Yadav, village Koraney and the papers on which her L.T.I. was obtained was used as a gift deed executed by Chetni Devi, the wife of Murat Mahto. In support of the charges, the complainant, including himself examined six witnesses. The trial court has considered in its judgment that the P.W.2 was a hearsay witness who simply stated that he learnt about the occurrence from the complainant. P.W.3 was also a hearsay 2 witness who similarly stated to have learnt about the occurrence from the complainant. These witnesses had not identified the accused/O.Ps. The P.W.4 was also a hearsay witness who stated similar lines that he learnt about the occurrence from the complainant Mano Devi. P.W.5 was also a hearsay witness stating on similar lines. P.W.6 was a formal witness. The trial court considered that P.W.1 was the petitioner/complainant herself who accepted in her evidence that she had gone with her brother Dwarika Yadav. The complainant stated that the accused/O.Ps. obtained her L.T.I. on papers in the registry office. The trial court has considered that the complainant’s allegation was that she had been taken for sterilization and she knew the fact that the sterilization is done in hospital but she was not taken there. The complainant did not explain why she did not put any objection when she was not taken to hospital instead she was taken to registry office. In registry office when her L.T.I. or signatures are taken on documents of registration, the Register explains to executants about the contents and purpose of the registration. The complainant has alleged in her complaint that she was made to give false statement in the registry office. It means the complainant had willfully given similar statements which she states she was made to give false statement but it must be with regard to the documents. It is not explained why she gave any such false statement in the registry office. The learned trial court has considered the important aspect of the case that the complainant says that she had gone with her brother Dwarika Yadav but Dwarika Yadav has not been examined by the complainant to support the prosecution story. It is not explained why 3 Dwarkia Yadav being her full brother was not examined. Non- examination of Dwarika Yadav is sufficient to draw adverse inference against the case of prosecution. Learned trial court has also considered that Chetni Devi, the wife of Murat Mahto had already instituted a complaint case earlier under Complaint No. 115C/1989 wherein the O.Ps. including complainant’s brother Dwarika Yadav as well as the complainant herself was an accused for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code under the allegation that they got gift deed fabricated and fraudulently executed in her (Chhetni Devi’s) name in the registry office by misrepresenting the present complainant (Mano Devi) as the Chhetni Devi. The trial court has also considered that the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 including complainant’s brother Dwarika Yadav was convicted in that case. However, the complainant (Mano Devi) was acquitted. The learned trial court had considered that due to conviction in the case filed by Chetni Devi the present complainant (Mano Devi) instituted a case subsequently in order to save her brother Dwarika Yadav and others and to give the occurrence a different shape. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial court, accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. Finding no merits, it is dismissed. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-