B.N.P.SINGH, J. - (1.)THE respondents on behest of Jurhan Tanti (P.W. 5) were prosecuted for offences, punishable under Sections 147, 323, 379 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code on accusation that on 17th February, 1988, the respondents came to the premises of Jurhan Tanti, demolished boundary of the land, damaged crops in the field and on protest by Pagli Devi (P.W. 3), having trespassed in her house, subjected her along with Dukna Devi, sons and daughters to indiscriminate assault, with fists and slaps. It was alleged that they made also Dukna Devi naked having stripped of her wearing apparels, broke teeth of Pagli Devi and retired from the place of occurrence with the crops of the field. At trial, prosecution examined six witnesses including Jurhan Tanti who happens to be the complainant, and set the judicial process in motion by filing a petition of complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The prosecution also examined other witnesses. The defence too examined one witness namely Ram Bahadur Singh (D.W. 1) who brought on record some documents and countered allegations attributed to the Respondents. The defence of the respondents before the trial court and also this court has been false implication due to allocation of land, which had fallen to the share of their mother and the trial court on meticulous appreciation of the evidences placed on the record, while negativing contentions raised at bar on behalf of the State, rendered verdict of acquittal and exonerated the respondent of the charges brought against them. The respondents had appeared in the proceeding and special Leave to Appeal against the impugned order was granted by the court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents have, however, placed on the record, a supplementary affidavit and it is urged on behalf of them that the parties have settled the dispute among themselves. So that as it may, the moot point for consideration before the court was as to whether the order under challenge was based on meticulous evaluation of the evidences placed on the record.
(2.)NOW adverting to the evidences placed on the record, one may find that there was only omnibus allegation in the petition of complaint that Dukna Devi was made naked on being stripped of her wearing apparels as those allegations were not explicit against any of them and that apart, though no charges about outraging modesty was ever framed by the trial court, there has been evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that it was Ram Prakash Tanti who made her naked. Though Gita Devi too stated about Dukna Devi being made naked but no accusation was attributed to the respondents. Though Ram Jivan Tanti alias Jivo Tanti had been saddled with the allegation of breaking teeth of Pagli Devi for which there has been evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 there has been no finding of the doctor. The children of the house were also suggested to have suffered assault by the respondents, such narrations were mentioned in the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, even though such narrations were conspicuous wanting in the petition of complaint, Gita Devi P.W. 4 would state about Naresh Tanti also having suffered injury due to assault. The trial court while recording judgment of acquittal took into consideration also the belated prosecution for which there was no plausible explanation by the complainant. The failure of the witnesses to establish identity of the P. O. land was also taken to be a ground by the court below to disbelieve the prosecution case. If P. W. 1 was to be considered credible, the house of Aka Sao, Sita Ram Sao. Bhuttan Tanti and Padalu Tanti are in the vicinity of place of occurrence but admittedly none of them have been examined at trial and those examined at trial include wife and daughter of Jurhan Tanti who happen to be P.Ws. 3 and 4 respectively. As for P.W. 2 he too was not an independent witness, as he admitted in certain terms that the sister of Jurhan Tanti happens to be his mother and as such one cannot help feeling that only those who were partisan and interested were the witnesses, entirely to the exclusion of independent witnesses. The witnesses had admitted in most certain term that a land dispute was pending between them and parties were fighting for possession of the land of Akli Devi who happened to be their mother. The evidences would show that complainant and the respondents had been granted parcha of the land by the State of Bihar and after death of Akli Devi, Jurhan Tanti claimed possession of land of the share of mother which irritated the respondents and taking into consideration the infirmities that has crept in the prosecution case, the finding recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be unreasonable and perverse warranting interference by this Court. There being no merit, this appeal is accordingly dismissed.