IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.26 of 2009 VINAY KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Surj Bansh Roy, APP. 03. 17.03.2009 Heard both sides. Complainant/petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Trial No. 1486/2008. The accuseds/ opposite party nos. 2 and 3 herein were put on trial for the charges framed under Sections 147,379,427,504 and 323 of the Penal Code. The prosecution in order to prove the case at the trial examined as many as 04 witnesses. The learned trial court has not placed reliance on P.W.1 as this witness was not produced for cross-examination. P.W.2 Ram Lakhan Rai is the only independent witness examined in the case. Paragraph no.8 of the judgment indicates that the learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence has found the same not worthy reliance for which reason has been assigned. Deposition of P.W.3 ( father of the complainant) indicates that parties are fighting litigation from before in as much as a Title Suit was earlier filed by him ( father of the complainant) which stood dismissed and against which an appeal has been preferred which is pending. Learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence has found apparent contradictions on the material aspects of the prosecution case and thereafter came to the 2 conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 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.)