IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.52 of 2008 LAWKUSH PRASAD @ LAWKUSH SAO Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RANJEET SAO 3. TUTU SHAW 4. AKHILESH SHAO 5. SANTOSHI SAO 6. NANDLAL SAO 7. SURJAN SAO 8. SUDARSHAN SAO 9. SUBODH SAO 10. RAMHARI SAO 11. CHOTAN SAO 12. PERMOD SAO 13. MANOJ SAO For the petitioners : Mr. Anil Mukund, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.C.Singh, A.P.P. -------------- 5 18.03.2009 Earlier considering the submissions that there was a chance of compromise, notices were issued on opposite parties, pursuant thereto, they have appeared. Heard. The complainant-petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20th May, 2008 recorded by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi, Patna in Trial No. 546/2008 whereby the accuseds (opposite party nos. 2 to 13 herein) were acquitted of the charges framed under sections 147, 427 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant filed the complaint in the year 2002 alleging therein that on the date of occurrence, the accused persons assaulted the complainant and cut shesham trees. The allegation was also in relation to theft of food grains and jewellery 2 from the house of the complainant. It appears that in order to prove the prosecution case, the complainant examined his wife, mother and brother as P.Ws 2, 3 and 4. The learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence has come to a conclusion that both the parties admittedly were on litigating terms. The Court has also taken notice of the fact that different exhibits have been filed by the accuseds to show that a dispute relating to the land in question was pending between the parties in the shape of Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding. It has also taken note of the fact that on previous occasions, complaints were filed against one of the accuseds which ended in acquittal. In the back ground of these facts, the Trial Court has taken a view that non- examination of any independent witness has proved fatal particularly when the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution are discrepant. This Court finds no patent illegality in the judgment meriting interference. The application seeking leave has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )