← Library
Patna High CourtSLA/49/2018dismissed

Jagdish Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-08-01Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

SLA No.49 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1127 Year-2007 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Jagdish Mahto, Son of Ram Narayan Mahto, Resident of Village- Hasanpur Kirath Ward No. 15, Muktapur, Police Station- Kalyanpur, DistrictSamastipur. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Brahamdev Mahto, son of Yogendra Mahto 3.

Vishnudev Mahto, Son of Yogendra Mahto 4.

Ram Dular Mahto, Son of Yogendra Mahto 5.

Ram Dev Mahto, Son of Yogendra Mahto 6.

Santosh Kumar, Son of Brahamdev Mahto.

7.

Yogendra Mahto, Son of Late Aghnu Mahto 8.

Sunaina Devi, Wife of Brahamdev Mahto 9.

Ramwati Devi, Wife of Yogendra Mahto All are resident of VillageMahavalipur at present Hasanpur, Police Station- Kalyanpur, DistrictSamastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Rajeev Ranjan Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Abha Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2019 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2.

This Special Leave to Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking leave to file appeal against the Judgment and order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur in Compliant Register No.

Patna High Court SLA No.49 of 2018(3) dt.01-08-2019 2/2 1127 of 2007, Trial No. 783 of 2018, Whereby and whereunder, he acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 from the charges under Sections 147, 323, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

On perusal of the impugned Judgment, it is apparent that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur has well discussed the evidences in detailed and rightly arrived at conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 147, 323, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

I find no reason to allow this Special Leave to Appeal and, accordingly, same is dismissed. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T