IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.12 of 2009 RAMA NANDAN SINHA Versus 1. RAM KUMAR SINGH 2. SRI AKHILA NAND SINGH 3. SRIMATI MOTI DEVI 4. STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arbind Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Azeem, A.P.P. ----------- 3 11.02.2009 Heard both sides. The complainant-petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25th September, 2008 passed by the learned Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna) in C/1201/04 whereby the accuseds (O.P. nos. 2 to 4 herein) have been acquitted of the charges framed under sections 323, 341, 379, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner fairly accepts before this court that opposite party nos. 3 (Smt. Moti Devi) is his own sister-in-law (‘shali’). It has further been admitted that a suit bearing Title Suit No. 10/2003 was filed by the complainant against her which has been dismissed. In those back ground, the learned Trial Court has considered the evidence of the complainant (C.W.-1), the two others witnesses brought in support of the prosecution namely Nagendra Kumar (C.W. 2) and Arbind Kumar (C.W. 3). The Trial Court on the evaluation of the evidence on record has found that C.W. 3 is merely a hear-say witness whereas C.W. 1 and 2 are interested/partisan witness. Learned Trial Court has - 2 - also taken into consideration the fact that although the complainant discloses that there were many independent witnesses who had arrived at the place of occurrence but none of them has been examined by the prosecution. In the light of these findings, the accuseds (opposite party nos. 2 to 4 herein) were acquitted of the charge(s). In view of the facts so manifest from the records and taken notice of this Court, the consideration of matter by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be illegal and/or perverse. The application seeking leave to assail the judgment has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J )