IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.10 of 2010 DILIP KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. SHANDIPAN, ADV. FOR THE O.P.: MR. ARUN KUMAR JHA, ADV. FOR THE STATE : MR. PARMESHWAR MEHTA, A.P.P. ----------- 5. 21.04.2010 This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 24.8.2009 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class as passed in Case No. C.R. No. 868 of 2005/Tr. No. 716 of 2009 whereby the O.Ps. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 341, 342, 323, and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were tried by the learned Magistrate. The case of the petitioner/complainant was that on 29.9.2005 at about 11:00 A.M., the O.Ps. 2 to 4 were ploughing his land and when he protested to it, the accused persons chased him and assaulted him. It was further alleged that chasing the petitioner/complainant, the O.Ps. 2 to 4 trespassed into the Aangan of his house and they also assaulted him there with fists slaps and lathi and one transistor radio valued at Rs. 600/- and one box containing ornaments and articles worth Rs. 25,000/- was taken away by them. In support of his case, the petitioner examined three witnesses. P.W 3, Dilip Kumar was the petitioner/complainant himself. P.W.2, Pradeep Mandal was the Phuphera brother of the petitioner. The P.W.1 Dhootharu Paswan was a blind man who was working under the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce any document regarding his - 2 - land whereas the O.Ps. 2 to 4 had produced Exts. A and B, namely, the agreement to purchase and registered sale deed with respect to purchase of the land in their favour. While recording judgment of acquittal, the learned trial court considered that the petitioner stated in his evidence that he had mentioned the details of his land in his complaint petition but on perusal of the record, no details were found. The petitioner did not produce any paper regarding his claim over the land. Learned trial court also considered that the witnesses were complainant’s relatives and his men and thus they were interested witnesses. The P.W.2 had stated in his evidence that 10-15 persons had assembled at the P.O. and the trial court considered that despite there being so many persons who are said to have witnessed the occurrence, no independent witness was examined by the petitioner. The P.W.1, who stated to have witnessed the occurrence in the field and the occurrence of chasing up to the petitioner/complainant’s house and occurrence of assault and theft inside of the house was disbelieved by the court below on the ground that this witness stated in his evidence that he had not gone any where and he had remained sitting at his Darwaja. Since witness said that he had not gone anywhere and he was sitting at his Darwaja, the leaned trial court rightly disbelieved the testimony of this witness on the point of occurrence in the field and inside the house. The complainant did not produce any paper regarding a land of which he said that the O.Ps. 2 to 4 were ploughing whereas the accused persons had produced documents of agreement for sale and registered Kewala for purchasing the land. - 3 - In view of the above materials as discussed, the trial court did not believe the prosecution case proved beyond doubts and by giving benefit of doubt, the O.Ps. 2 to 4 were acquitted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal as passed by the trial court, therefore, prayer for grant of leave is refused. The application is dismissed. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-