IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.14 of 2010 BACHCHU YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 30.04.2010 This is an application for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal as recorded by the Lower Appellate Court, namely Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Fast Track Court No. 4, Jamui in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2008 vide its judgment dated 5.12.2009. The case of the petitioner/complainant, before the trial court was that while the petitioner/complainant was ploughing his filed under Khata No.55 Khesra No. 22 for sowing wheat, the O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 armed with lathi came there and abused him and removed the bullocks and plough out of the filed. It was also alleged that on his protest, he was attempted to be assaulted but he fled away from the field and ran to his house but the O.Ps. trespassed into the house also and assaulted with fists- slaps and lathi. On considering the ocular evidence as produced by the complainant, the learned trial court namely, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui convicted the O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 under sections 323 and 452 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for a period of three years and one year respectively vide judgment dated 25.10.2008 under Complaint Case No.818 of 2002/Trial No.1084 of 2008. 2 The O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 preferred Cr. Appeal No. 44 of 2008 before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. 4, Jamui. The judgment of Lower Appellate Court shows that the learned Appellate Court considered that the complainant-petitioner did not file any paper regarding the land which he stated to be ploughing. It was also considered that the defense witnesses have produced some land receipts with respect to land. The learned Appellate Court further considered that the witnesses adduced by the complainant did say about the assault in the field as well as in the house of the complainant but in view of the complainant’s case itself that he had fled away from his field to his house and that none of the witnesses said that they had also run with the complainant from the field to the house, therefore, the learned court below did not find the testimony of the witnesses reliable in this regard. The learned court below further considered the evidence of the complainant (P.W.1) at para-13 where he stated that his house was at a distance of 1 kilometer from the field and that when the O.Ps. had chased him up to his house, he had raised Hulla but on Hulla nobody came to rescue him there. Since nobody had come there, the learned court below considered that no witnesses were present and on this ground the testimony of the 3 witnesses who have stated about the assault in the house was not believable. The learned court below also considered that there was land dispute between the parties. On consideration of these materials, the case of the prosecution was disbelieved and the O.Ps. were acquitted. I find no ground to make interference with the order of acquittal as passed by lower Appellate Court. In such view of the matters, the S.L.A. is dismissed at the stage of admission. Ravi/- (C.M. Prasad, J.)