Crl.L.P. 4/2000 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.N.SARMA By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for granting leave to file a n appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.6.99 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S), Barpeta in Case No.1207c/98 acquitting the ac cused /opposite parties from the charges under sections 379/323 IPC. The petitioner as complaint instituted the aforesaid complaint case alleging th at the accused persons on 12.7.1996 in absence of the complainant trespassed int o the homestead of the complainant and looted the articles described in the comp laint petition and they also assaulted the wife of the complainant as a result of which she sustained injury in her left hand. Upon raising hue and cry, the ne arby people came to the place of occurrence and then the accused persons went aw ay.They had looked the articles like utensils, clothes, tin etc. belonging to th e complainant. The learned trial magistrate upon perusal of the allegation made in the complain t petition and considering the initial deposition of the witnesses under section 200 Cr.P.C, took cognizance of the offence under sections 379/323 IPC and notic es having been issued, they appeared before the learned trial court and were all owed to go on bail. After appearance, the prosecution examined five witnesses on its behalf and the defence none. The learned trial court after considering the materials on record, held that the petitioner failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence, this petition against the acquittal. I have perused the impugned judgment and order. The learned trial Judge found co ntradictions in the statement of the witnesses on the vital points more particul arly, in the statement of PWs and the eye witnesses. It was further found by the learned trial Judge that the fact of lodging the ejahar relating to the inciden t was neither stated in the complaint petition nor in the deposition and thereby he suppressed the material fact. In fact, upon perusal of the evidence adduced by the PWs, there is a doubt about the genesis of occurrence and citrus thereof . Upon such apprehension and other contradiction which was vital in nature, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. In an appeal against acquitt al, it is the duty of the petitioner to prove the charge against the accused bey ond all reasonable doubt which was found absence in the instant case by the lea rned trial court. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this Criminal Leave petition an d it is accordingly dismissed.