IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.71 of 2007 UPENDRA SAH @ SUBHAS CHANDRA PRASAD @ UPENDRA PRASAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIPIN SAHNI 3. PATIRAM SAHNI 4. RAM BAHADUR SAHNI 5. SUBHAS SAHNI 6. BALA SAHNI 7. LALDEO SAHNI 8. ASHOK KUMAR SAHNI 9. RAJESH SAHNI ------- For the petitioner :Mr.Vishnudeo Narayan & :Mr. Mani Shankar Narayan For O.P.No.2 :Mr. Ashutosh Kumar For O.P.Nos. 3 to 9 :Mr.Chandra Mohan Jha ----------- 5. 23.01.2009 Heard both sides. The petitioner-complainant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 19.9.2007 passed in C.R.No.80/2002, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accuseds (o.p.nos.2 to 8 herein) of the charges under sections 147, 323,324,380,452,504/34 IPC . The date of occurrence as per the prosecution is 18.1.2002. The complaint appears to have been filed on the same day in Court. The prosecution case precisely is that on the date and time of occurrence the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly, entered into the house of the complainant and thereafter they abused and assaulted him with Chura and Lathi. The complainant is said to have received Chura injury caused by O.P. - 2 - No.2. At the trial, as many as five PWs. seem to have been examined. On appraisal of the evidence so adduced on behalf of the parties, the learned trial court found that the charges have not been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. While granting the benefit of doubt, the learned trial court in paragraph 16 of the judgment has held that the evidence brought on record by the parties indicates that they are locked in litigation since long. A positive motive for the occurrence has been asserted by the prosecution and supported at trial has not been proved. The learned trial court has noted this fact in paragraph 10 of the judgment. The trial court further seems to have taken into account that the injury allegedly sustained by the complainant does not get support from the injury report (Ext.1). The allegation as per the complaint is that he got Chura injury. The doctor has found it to be an abrasion. On these facts the court below has held that the alleged injury is not compatible with the prosecution case. The judgment further indicates that the evidence of p.ws.1 and 3 does indicate that they reached the hospital at about noon and remained there till evening and, as such, filing of the complaint on the same day also found improbable. In view of the reasons and findings assigned by the learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence available before it, this Court does not find any patent illegality in consideration of - 3 - the matter by the learned trial court. The present application seeking leave to appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )