IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.60 of 2010 RAM LAGAN KAMAT, S/o. Late Batohi Kamat, r/o. Menahi, P.S. Ghoghardiha, Distt. Madhubani. ------ Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Rama Kant Kamat, 3. Ram Prasad Kamat, 4. Kamal Prasad Kamat, 5. Pawan Kumar Kamat, All sons of late Mugali Kamat. 6. Dilip Kamat, 7. Shobhit kamat, 8. Vinod Kumar Kamat, sons of Sri Ramakant Kamat, 9. Jibach Kamat, s/o. late Bhaijee Kamat, All resident of village Menahi, P.s. Ghogardiha, Distt. Madhubani. ------- O.Ps. ----------- 03. 24.08.2010 Earlier the petitioner sought time for filing some papers and he was allowed time for filing the same but as yet he has not filed any papers. This S.L.A. was heard at the admission stage. The petitioner has filed this S.L.A. against the impugned judgment dated 09.06.2010 as passed by Sri Prabhakar Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhanjharpur in C.R Case No. 152 of 2003/T.R. No. 1027 of 2010, whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 to 9 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 323 & 379 of the I.P.C. The complainant’s case was that the O.P. 2 Nos. 2 to 9 variously armed, came to his land and cut one green sisam tree of 6 feet valued at Rs.5,000/- and they also cut 8 bamboos worth Rs. 400/-. Complainant’s further case was that when he went to prohibit the O.Ps., they assaulted him with fists and slaps and tied him with a tree and then took away some portion of cut Sisam tree and the bamboos. While recording the order of acquittal, the learned Magistrate had discussed that during trial the complainant examined himself only as a witness and his testimony remained uncorroborated. It was also discussed by the learned trial-court that the complainant alleged that the O.Ps. had assaulted him with fists and slaps but in his evidence he simply stated that he was abused and tied to a tree, thus there was material contradiction on the point of assault. It was also discussed that the complainant stated that one Moti Lal Kamat, the grand-father of the O.Ps. was the Khatiyani Raiyat of the P.O. land and he further stated that in the new survey name of his (complainant’s) purchaser Tarakant Choudhary and 3 Bindu Choudhary was recorded as raiyats but any paper regarding entry of name of Tara Kant Choudhary and Bindu Choudhary was not filed by him. Learned trial-court also considered that the complainant did not file any paper regarding his ownership and possession over the land. It was also submitted that the complainant was unable to show specifically as to from which land the tree and bamboos were cut and taken away. Lastly, the learned trial-court considered that the complainant stated in his evidence that at the time of occurrence, 20-25 persons were present at the place of occurrence and out of whom he named Shatrughan Mochi, Lakhan Kamat, Prakash Kamat but none of the O.P. Nos. 2 to 9 were named as the persons present there. Besides this it was also considered by the learned trial-court that even the evidence of the complainant which itself suffers with various infirmities and contradiction as above, remained uncorroborated. In the facts and circumstances, the learned trial-court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal 4 and acquitted the O.P. Nos.2 to 9 of the charges. I find nothing to interfere with the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned trial-court. In the result, this S.L.A. is dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)