IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.26 of 2008 ARJUN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE TARACHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SARWAHARPUR, P.S.- FATUHA, DISTRICT- PATNA. AT PRESENT RESIDING AT BARI PATAN DEVI COLONY, POLICE STATION- ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA. COMPLAINANT/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE TARACHAND SINGH. 3. KANTI DEVI, WIFE OF KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH. 4. UDAY KUMAR. 5. SATISH KUMAR. 6. RAKESH KUMAR. SONS OF KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- SARWAHANPUR, POLICE STATION- FATUHA, DISTRICT- PATNA. AT PRESENT RESIDING AT BARI PATAN DEVI COLONY, POLICE STATION- ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA. ACCUSED PERSONS/RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 21.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This Special Leave to Appeal has been filed challenging the order acquitting the opposite parties for offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 406 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations made by the appellant are that the Bhabhi of the informant was entrusted with the jewellery and ornaments worth Rs. 25,000/-. It is alleged that the Bhabhi did not return the jewellery and ornaments on demand. Several witnesses have been examined during the trial of this case. Apart from the husband and wife, none of the witnesses have been able to state about the actual entrustment of said jewellery. The 2 Court below has rejected the evidence of prosecution witnesses in this case on the ground that the ingredients under Section 406 have not been proved. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the wife of the appellant had handed over the jewellery and ornaments to her sister-in-law (accused) and on the basis of her statement uncorroborated by any other evidence this case has been instituted. The reasons given by the trial Court for dismissing the appeal are cogent and cannot be said to perverse. In the circumstances, this Special Leave to Appeal is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)