CRIMINAL APPEAL No.16 OF 1993 (U/S) Appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.11.1992 passed in Complaint Case No. 423 (c) of 1988, Tr. No. 476 of 1992 by Sri Ashok Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Bhabhua. 1. DAYA RAM SINGH, Son of Late Loknath Singh, Resident of Village Sheon, Police Station- Bhabhua, District-Bhabhua. …………(Appellant) Versus 1. UDAI NATH SINGH. 2. Rajeshwar Singh. 3. Kalindra Singh. All sons of Late Paras Nath Singh. All residents of Village Dumdum, Police Station-Bhabhua, Distt.-Bhabhua. 4. Ghura Singh, Son of Bundi Singh, Resident of Village-Sheon, Police Station-Bhabhua, Distt.- Bhabhua. 5. Ram Naresh Singh, Son of Deonath Singh @ Deonandan @ Deonandan Singh. 6. Mohan Singh, Son of Ram Naresh Singh. 7. Ashok Singh, Son of Ram Naresh Singh. All residents of Village Ekhlaspur, P.S.- Bhabhua, Distt.-Bhabhua. …………. (Respondents) ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH **************** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Bhabhua in Complaint Case No. 423 (c) of 1988, Tr. No. 476 of 1992 for offences under Sections 323 and 379 of the - 2 - Indian Penal Code. The complainant on 21.11.1998 filed a complaint stating therein that the accused persons came upon his lands variously armed and having assaulted them destroyed and took away the paddy crops worth Rs. 2,000/- (Two Thousand). In support of its complaint the appellant adduced three witnesses apart from certain documents to show the factum of possession. The learned court below disbelieved the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 on the ground that they were highly interested witnesses. Moreover, the trial court also held that the land in question was in disputed possession in which the defence also filed Exhibit-A. Having gone through the judgment of acquittal and the lower court records, I am of the view that PW 1 and PW 2 are interested witnesses since there are many cases both of civil and criminal nature pending between the parties. Moreover, the complainant has also admitted that there are consolidation proceedings also pending between the parties - 3 - and the disputed land is claimed by both of them. There is no manner of doubt that in fact there is a bona fide dispute between the parties and in this background it is difficult to conclude that the complainant has brought forth a true narration of the sequence of events. Under the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal and the appeal is therefore dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 30th November, 2009 NAFR/Vikash. (Anjana Prakash, J.)