IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.39 of 2010 BHIKHA PASWAN, S/o. late Kartik Paswan, r/o. Village- Bhaddi, P.S. Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. Ambika Paswan, S/o. lal Mohan Paswan, 3. Alam Kishore Paswan, S/o. Lal Mohan Paswan, 4. Shanti Devi, S/o. Abmika Paswan. ----------- 02. 20.05.2010 This application has been filed for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.03.2010 as passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saharsa in connection with Complaint case No.280C of 1994/ T.R. No.1408 of 2010, whereby the O.Ps. 2 to 4, who were tried on the charges under Sections 323, 427, 379 & 147 of the I.P.C., have been acquitted by the trial-court. The petitioner/complainant filed his complaint alleging that while he was irrigating his land the O.P. No.1 asked him to irrigate his land whereupon he denied stating that unless the previous dues of irrigation will pay he will not irrigate his land, whereupon he (Ambika Paswan) stated he would not allow the complainant to take water through the Section Pipe laid in his land and that thereafter the O.Ps. came there assaulted the 2 complainant with lathi and they also took away the Nozal pump of the motor valued at Rs.700/- and the Suction Pipe of Rs.1,000/-. In this case the complainant adduced three witnesses, P.W.1 was the complainant himself, P.W.2 was complainant’s uncle and P.W.3 was examined before charge but after charge he was not produced for cross-examination, hence, the trial court expunged his evidence for consideration in deciding the charges. While passing the order of acquittal the learned trial-court considered that the petitioner did not produce any paper regarding the machine or the suction pipe said to have been taken away by the O.Ps. It was also considered that the complainant stated that he was assaulted by way of lathi but any injury report was not produced before the trial-court. The trial-court also considered that the witnesses were close relative of the complainant and his uncle and thus they are highly interested witnesses. Further it was considered that the occurrence is said 3 to have taken place in an open field and many villagers would have been there but no independent witness had been adduced by the petitioner/complainant. The trial-court also took into consideration that the petitioner/complainant named Shanti Devi the lady O.P. amongst the accused persons committed the offence but in his statement recorded during enquiry he had not named the lady amongst the accused. Learned trial-court also considered that in his statement during inquiry the petitioner/complainant have stated that Alam Kishore Paswan had taken away the suction pipe but in his evidence before the Court he stated that Ambika Paswan had taken away the section pipe but there is contradiction in the name of person who had taken away the section pipe. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, the learned trial-court find the prosecution case full of doubts and by giving benefit of doubt he acquitted the O.P. No. 2 to 4. Considering the materials, I find that there is no 4 sufficient ground to make any interference in the order of acquittal as made by the trial-court. In such view of the matters, this S.L.A. is dismissed at the stage of admission. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)