IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.46 of 2010 MAHAVER MAHTO Versus UMASHANKAR @ PUTUS MAHTO & ORS ----------- 5. 30.08.2010 This SLA was heard at the stage of admission. This application is against the judgment dated 3rd May 2010 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Hilsa (Nalanda) passed in Complaint Case No. 103( c) of 2003 Trial No.334 of 2010 whereby the O.P.Nos. 1 to 9 were tried u/s 380 I.P.C. and the learned trial court convicted O.P.No.8 Sunil Mahto of the charge and acquitted the remaining O.Ps., namely, O.P.Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 of the charge giving them benefit of doubt. The complainant’s case was that the O.Ps variously armed trespassed into his house and the O.P. Sunil Mahto forcibly obtained the key from the complainant and by opening the box with the key took away cash of Rs.16,000/- and ornaments and that the other O.Ps took away utensils, clothes, tape recorder, cassettes etc. The learned trial court considered that on the basis of the occurrence, three witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were examined .C.W.3 was the complainant himself who stated about taking away of cash and ornaments by opening the box by O.P. Sunil Mahto and other O.Ps. took away the utensils, clothes etc. But C.W.1 stated in his examination in-chief that the cash money, ornaments and other things were taken away by O.,P. Sunil Mahto. So far C.W.2 is concerned, he also simply stated that Sunil Mahto 2 had taken away cash money and ornaments and he gave a generalized statement that the other O.Ps. had taken away camera, clothes, etc. Thus, there was consistency in evidence regarding Sunil Mahto about taking away of cash money and ornaments from the box inside complainant’s house. So far other O.Ps. are concerned, the complainant gave a generalized statement that they took away articles but C.W.1 did not corroborate him on this point and C.W.2 also stated about other O.Ps. in general way. Nothing specific was stated as to who of the O.Ps., other than Sunil Mahto had taken away which article. In the circumstance, the learned trial court found the case u/s 380 IPC proved against O.P.No.8 and convicted him. So far the remaining O.Ps, namely, O.P.Nos.1 to 7 and 9 are concerned, the learned trial court did not find the case proved against them beyond doubt and by giving benefit of doubt, acquitted them. In this SLA the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, as aforesaid. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the reasons as discussed above, I find nothing to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, as passed by the learned trial court. Therefore, this SLA is rejected. Jay/ (C. M . Prasad, J.)