IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.13 of 2009 BIMLA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant: Mr. Amresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the State: Mr. S.N.Prasad, A.P.P. 05. 16.03.2009 Complainant/petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Begusarai in complaint Case No. 743-C/2003. By the said judgment the accuseds/ opposite party nos. 2 to 16 herein have been acquitted of the charge(s) framed under Sections 147,148,323,342,380,427,448 and 504 of the Penal Code. The prosecution case precisely is that on the date of occurrence, the complainant was making construction of his house in the mean while accused persons arrived there and they started abusing the complainant. A protest was made by the complainant whereupon all the accused persons assaulted her with kicks, fists and punches. They declared that they would not allow construction of roof as there was dispute relating to the land. The further allegation is that accused persons involved in causing damage to the roof which was under construction. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. Learned trial court while appraising the evidence has assigned cogent reasons to disbelieve the evidence led on the point of theft, mischief and assault and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Trial court has particularly taken note of the fact that the - 2 - complainant as well as his son P.W.4 Niraj Kumar specifically denied to have filed any case against Chandra Shekhar Mahto (opposite party no.9) relating to the land on which the present construction was being made whereas the defence brought on record documents in the shape of Exhibits A,B,C,D,E and F which includes the case filed by the son of the complainant in the court of Circle officer, Garpura. On appraisal of the entire evidence on record the learned trial court has recorded the findings of acquittal. This court does not find any patent illegality in the judgment meriting interference. The application seeking leave has no merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal,J.)