IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA NO.43 OF 2009 SMT.MITHILESH KUMARI SRIVASTAVA, WIFE OF SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF DALSINGSARAI BLOCK PEON QUARTER, POLICE STATION DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ZAFAR ALAM, SON OF SHAMEER KHAN 3. AMIR ALAM KHAN, SON OF ZAFAR ALAM KHAN BOTH 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF BLOCK COLONY, DALSINGSARAI, POLICE STATION DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ………………………………………………………………..………OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 2 20/04/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed on 10.02.2009 wherein the Court has held that the petitioner has not been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. A complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that the complainant was in her house and the Opposite Party No. 2 had tried to outrage her modesty and Opposite Party No. 3 also took away certain amount from the pocket of the husband of the petitioner. Charges were framed under Sections 323, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. In all, five witnesses were examined, On perusal of the judgment, I find that the Court has rejected the evidence of PWs 2 1 and 2 on the ground that they could not have been in a position to be the eye-witnesses in this case as they live 4-5 kms. away from the house of the petitioner. The second aspect that the Court has considered is that PW 2 has infact changed the place of occurrence. The evidence of PW 3 has also been rejected by the Court on the ground that PW 3 is a hearsay witness as he admits that he was doing `field work’ at the time when the occurrence took place. The evidence of PW 4 has also been rejected by the Court on the ground that he admits that he was at his residence when the occurrence took place and he heard the sound of `hulla’ and came from his house to the house of the petitioner and claims that Opposite Party No. 2 assaulted the husband of the complainant, whereas there is no medical evidence to support this aspect of the occurrence. PW 5 claims that there are several persons living near his residence with whom he has a cordial relation. Not a single witness of the neighbourhood has been examined. The Court has examined the husband of the complainant and the complainant, both have given different versions of the occurrence. According to the husband of the complainant, he was on duty in the Block Office when the occurrence had taken place and, therefore, the 3 Court found that it could not have been possible to be at two places at the same time simultaneously. Apart from the aforesaid reasons, it has also been considered that both the parties were in the Block Office and have previous enmity and infact the Court has referred to Exhibits A, B and C to show that there are cases under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending between them and it is said that the husband of the complainant and the Opposite Party No. 2 had many complaints against each other and as such the entire gamut of facts indicates that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the occurrence took place in the manner alleged. The reasons given by the Court are based on the evidence led in the Court and on the basis of the documents. I find that the Court has not erred on facts in passing the impugned order of acquittal. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and the SLA is dismissed accordingly. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )