CRIMINAL APPEAL No.19 OF 1993 (U/S) Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.02.1993 passed in Complaint Case No. 853C of 1989 by Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai. ANIL KUMAR SINGH, Son of Phulena Prasad Singh, Resident of Bakhri, Police Station-Bakhri, Dist.-Begusarai. …….Complainant- (Appellant). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Satya Narain Ram, Son of not known to the appellant Officer-in-Charge, Manjhaul, Police Station, District- Begusarai. ……Accused---(Respondents). ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************* Anjana Prakash, J. No one appears. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 22.02.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarari in Complaint Case No. 853C of 1989 for the offences under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.1989 at about 7 P.M. the respondent No. 2 assaulted the complainant and snatched Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) from him. After - 2 - an inquiry charge was framed under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code the complainant in all examined five witnesses whereas the defence also examined two witnesses and proved certain documents to show that there were proceedings under Sections 107 and 144 of Cr.P.C. pending between the accused and the complainant. The trial court on point of Section 379 has concluded that even though it was the case of the complainant that he had received money from PW 4, Rishi Kumar Chaudhary but when he was examined he refused the same. Moreover, all the witnesses examined were accused in the counter-case instituted by the Respondent No. 2. Under the circumstances, the trial court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had snatched away Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) from the complainant. On question of Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code the trial court held that the genesis of the occurrence is that the complainant had - 3 - been threatened since he was a witness against the accused in an earlier case but on perusal of Exhibit-J exhibited on behalf of the accused it was found that the complainant was not a witness and therefore the genesis being in doubt the prosecution case was reasonably dented. The trial court held that the complainant had not approached the Court with the full true disclosure of the occurrence and doubted the prosecution case. For this reason the Respondent No. 2 was given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges. On going through the evidence, I also find that the witnesses are interested and it is true that Exhibit-J does not show that the complainant was a witness in the said case. Under the circumstances, I see no reason for differing with the judgment of acquittal which is a well reasonable one. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 3rd December, 2009 NAFR/Vikash. (Anjana Prakash, J.)