Criminal Appeal (U/S) No. 23 of 1998 ~~~~~~ Against the order of acquittal dated 16.09.1997 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate – Ist Class, Nawada in Complaint Case No. 91 of 1996 / T.R. No. 499 of 1997. ~~~~~~ Jago Sao, Son of Chaman Sao, Resident of village – Pakribarawan, P. S. – Pakribarawan, District – Nawadah. - (Complainant in the court below). .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. Rajendra Sao. 2. Madan Sao. 3. Maksudan Sao. 4. Manoj Sao, All sons of Bishun Sao. All residents village – Pakribarawan, P. S. – Pakribarawan, District – Nalanda. - (Accused in the Court below). 5. The State of Bihar. .... .... Respondents. ~~~~~~ For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondents : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. Mr. Ram Adya Singh, Advocate. Mr. Arjun Prasad No.-1, Advocate. ~~~~~~ P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 16.09.1997 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate – Ist Class, Nawadah in Complaint Case No. 91 of 1996 / T.R. No. 499 of 1997. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant is the uncle and the accused persons are the nephews. There is partition between them and has no concern between them. It is also alleged that the accused persons came, assaulted and theft away. The motive behind the occurrence as alleged is that the son of the complainant has earned and purchased some land out of his own income and the income of his wife from Naihar and the accused persons claimed their right and share in the property. 2 4. On the complaint the case proceeded and cognizance was taken and during the trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. 5. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence and the case of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the false case has been instituted for share in the property. The trial court taking into consideration of the evidence of the witnesses Jari Sao did not turn up for cross-examination after charge and hence his evidence is of no consequence. 6. P. W. 1 though stated about the assault by Lathi but in the complaint petition there is no mention of assault by Lathi. 7. P. W. 2 though has stated that he does not remember who assaulted his sons. He does not remember nor can he say the specification of theft of cycle or of which company. 8. P. W. 5 stated that the shop from which the theft is alleged is in possession of Madan Sao. Hence, the trial court found the evidence of the witnesses are neither reliable nor inspire confidence and hence held that the prosecution fails to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and hence acquitted the accused. 9. Having perused the records and the evidence of the witnesses, I do not find that the finding recorded by the learned lower court is perverse or against the record. Moreover, the occurrence is of the year 1986 and the public justice also does not demand interference in the impugned order. Hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 29th September, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.