IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.67 of 2008 Maheshwar Prasad S/o Sri Satyadeo Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Vikas Nagar Kurjee, Patna-10, presently H.N. 47B, Nehru Nagar, P.S. Patliputra, Patna-13. …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Arjun Singh S/o Late Bharat Singh, 3. Shiv Rati Devi W/o Arjun Singh, 4. Rajesh Kumar S/o Arjun Singh, 5. Malti Kumari D/o Arjun Singh, 6. Rajanti Devi D/o Arjun Singh. All 2 to 6 resident of Mohalla- Vikash Nagar, Kurjee, P.S. Digha, District- Patna-10. … Opposite parties ----------- 7/ 27.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 6. This application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 8.8.2008 passed by Sri Kanhaiya Ram, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No.458©/2001, Trial No. 62 of 2008, in which the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were accused for the offence under sections 147, 148, 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal code. The genesis of the occurrence is that the house in which the complainant and the accused persons lived is a joint family property. The house stands in the name of the father of the petitioner and the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place because the accused persons wanted to take possession of the entire house, in question. Learned court below while discussing the evidence of the witnesses has found that the manner of occurrence is not proved, all the witnesses are interested and that the case has been instituted because of - 2 - the house in which both the parties are living. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies heavily on the injury report and has argued that the injury report demonstrates that the complainant had received four injures. The injuries are described at paragraph 11 of the application which are all simple in nature and it would appear that the injuries were scratches on fore- head, right cheek, and chin. Learned court below has suspected the authenticity of the injury report on the ground that attested copy was produced in the court and the attestation was not signed and further because the injury report did not bear any case number or disclose the age of the injury. Considering all the materials that have come on record, I do not find that the court below has passed the judgment of acquittal on unreasonable or perverse grounds. In the result, this S.L.A. is dismissed as having no merit. JA/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)