IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.89 of 2008 SANT LAL MANDAL Versus 1 STATE OF BIHAR 2 ARUN MANDAL 3 ANIL MANDAL @ DASRATH MANDAL 4 RAJESH KUMAR MANDAL 5 SUMAR MANDAL For the petitioner :Mr. Umakant Prasad, Advocate For the State :Mr.Rajesh Kumar, APP ----------- 3. 03.03.2009 Heard Mr. Umakant Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the application. The complainant-petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27th November,2007, passed in Complaint Case No.338/2002, whereby the accused (s) (O.P.Nos.2 to 5) have been acquitted of the charges framed under sections 147, 323,229 and 386 IPC. Bare perusal of the prosecution case culled out at paragraph 2 shows that the bone of contention between the parties is a piece of land appertaining Khata No.273, bearing Khesra No.296 & 297 measuring three Bighas 19 Kathas seven Dhurs. According to the complainant, he had purchased the land in question in the year 2002 and was residing thereon after constructing a house and on the rest part of the disputed land he was cultivating. The allegation is that accused persons forcibly harvested the crops and demanded ransom money (Rangdari) and on refusal thereof they assaulted the complainant. In support of the case, the prosecution examined three witnesses, whereas the defence also adduced oral evidence. The - 2 - learned trial court, while appreciating the evidence of PW2 has noted that this witness, who is the brother of the complainant, has not been able to disclose the name of the vendor. From his deposition, it has further been deciphered that there was in fact no sale deed in their favour. The prosecution was claiming possession on the basis of an agreement to sale. The Court also considered several documents placed on record by the defence including the order passed in Title Suit no.218/93 which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was filed by the accused persons. The learned trial court found and held that the prosecution has not been able to prove either their possession and/or the manner of occurrence. This Court, on going through the judgment under focus, particularly paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof is of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any patent illegality meriting interference by this Court. The application seeking leave to appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )