IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.20 of 2009 UDAY NANDAN SAHAY Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHANDRA BHUSAN RAI 3. DEO NARAYAN RAI 4. SUKDEO RAI 5. NAGENDRA RAI 6. RAMESHWAR RAI 7. KAMESHWAR RAI 8. KAPILESHWAR RAI 9. RAM NATH RAI 10. DHANANJAY RAI 11. SUNIL RAI 12. PAWAN KUMAR 13. RAVINDRA RAI 14. BASHSTHA RAI 15. BITESHWAR RAI 16. NAWAL KISHOR RAI For the appellant : Mr. Anshuman, Advocate For the State : ----------- 4 16.03.2009 Heard. The petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 4th December, 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur in Trial no. 521 of 2008. By the said judgment, the accused (O.P. nos. 2 to 16 herein) have been acquitted of the charges(s) framed under sections 147, 148 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioner fairly admits before this Court that the both the parties are agnates being the common descendants of Premdhar Rai. The allegation is that the accused forcibly looted crop standing on khata no. 1005 plot nos. 5015, 5016 and 5047 measuring a total area of 3 acres 29 decimals. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that although 2 the case of the complainant is that the lands in question were acquired by the mother of the complainant by a sale deed but no such document was filed in Court. The Trial Court has also taken note of the contradictions appearing in the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2. P.W. 3 (son of the complainant) is admittedly not an eye witness to the occurrence. In paragraph no. 12 of the judgment, the Trial Court delineates the reasons for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court finds no patent illegality in the judgment under challenge. For the reasons stated above, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )