IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1198 of 2008
SIYA SHARAN MANJHI, S/o Late Raghunandan Manjhi,
R/o Village-Arai Dih, P.S.-Shahjahanpur, District-
Patna.
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. Pradip Singh,
......Opposite Parties.
For the petitioner : None
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.
-----------
2 24-06-2010 This matter was taken up on call, when on
the request of learned counsel representing the
petitioner; it was directed to be called out at quarter
past twelve. When case was again called out, nobody
appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the state.
This application is directed against the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 09-08-2008
recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Patna City in Shahjahan P. S. Case No. 01/95(G.R. NO.
1458/95). The opposite party herein was tried and
acquitted of the charge punishable under section 354 of
the Indian Penal Code.
An F.I.R. was lodged on 29-10-1995 relating
to an occurrence allegedly committed on 24-10-1995.
As per prosecution case, the victim (PW-3) was molested
by the accused, when she had visited his house.
2
In support of the prosecution case, three
witnesses namely pW-1 (brother of the informant), PW-
2(father of the victim) and the victim girl herself (PW-3)
were examined. Learned trial court on appraisal of the
evidence on record found that the informant was owing
certain amount due to the accused (Opposite Party no.
2). It is further found that the evidence adduced on
behalf of the prosecution was at variance on vital
issues. The age as disclosed by the victim in the First
Information Report was also not found correct. The
learned Magistrate has also taken into account the fact
that the investigating officer of the case was also not
examined in order to substantiate the prosecution case.
Delay in filing the case has also not been explained by
the prosecution. In these circumstances, the court
below has found that the prosecution has not been able
to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubt.
This court finds no illegality and/or
perversity in the judgment and order of acquittal. The
application is devoid of merit.
It is accordingly, dismissed.
Sujit ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )