Nagendra Prasad Singh @ Narendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

SLA No.41 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2001 Year-2015 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Nagendra Prasad Singh @ Narendra Prasad Singh Son of Mahatam Singh Resident of Janakpuriya, P.S.- Chauri, District- Bhojpur. At present resident of House No. 114, D.M. Kothi Road, P.S.- Nawada Ara, District- Bhojpur ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Vinay Kumar Singh Son of Late Ramdeo Sharma Resident of Janakpuriya, P.S.- Chauri, District- Bhojpur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Makardhwaj Upadhyay For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Zeyaul Hoda ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-12-2019 This is an application under Sections 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.2001C of 2015 by Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-12, Ara whereby the learned Judge has acquitted Opposite Party No.2 ((Vinay Kumar Singh) from the charges under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penasl Code.

Allegation against Opposite Party No.2(Vinjay Kumar Singh) in the complaint petition is that he broke open the door of the house of the complainant, taking advantage of the situation that complainant normally resides at Ara along with his

Patna High Court SLA No.41 of 2019(4) dt.09-12-2019 2/2 family members. Further allegation is that the Opposite Party No.2 (Vinay Kumar Singh) committed theft and when complainant reached, he found Opposite Party No.2 inside the room along with two others. Thereafter, occurrence of assault and demand of ransom is alleged.

The learned Judge doubted the prosecution case on the ground that Opposite Party No.2 (Vinay Kumar Singh) is full brother of the petitioner and there is no evidence of partition of joint family property or the fact that the house was exclusive property of the complainant. Moreover, one witness who was examined before charge did not appear for further crossexamination after charge, hence, his evidence was not considered.

Since doubt of the learned trial Judge is based on material on the record and after appreciation of evidence, I do not find that the judgment of the trial Court is fit to be interfered with. Hence, this application for Special Leave to Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.

(Birendra Kumar, J) B.Kr./- U T