JUDGMENT S.A. Khan, J. – This appeal arises against the judgment of acquittal, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Arrah in Complaint Case No. 132 of 1991/Trial No. 247 of 2000 acquitting the opposite parties nos. 1 to 4 of the offences allegedly committed under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A complaint petition was filed by Raghunath Sharma on 27.3.1991in which he has alleged that he was sleeping in his house when he heard someone knocking at the door. The complainant’s case is that he prepares and treats patients for snake bites etc. On the presumption that someone had come for treatment, the complainant opened the door and found the opposite parties present there. It is said that Sonapati Sharma was armed with a Pistol, Gopal Sharma was armed with a Chhura. Both of them asked the complainant to handover the key of the cupboard. It is said that he was slapped by one of them whereupon he handed over the key of the cupboard. It is alleged that the opposite parties stole away cash, silver ornaments etc. 3. At the very outset it may be noted that the complainant did not take steps to lodge a case in the police station rather he has lodged the present case in Court. The reason would be obvious after considering the evidence that has come in this case. Six witnesses were examined after trial, out of whom P.W. 6 has proved the complaint petition. The other witnesses are the family members of Raghunath Sharma. The complainant died after giving evidence. He has been substituted by Rajmuni Devi in the Trial Court itself. Rajmuni Devi is the daughter-in-law of Raghunath Sharma. 4. P.W. 1, Raj Kumari Devi has stated that the occurrence took place in middle of the night. She alleges that the miscreants slapped her, Rajmuni Devi and Sushila Devi and Sonapati Sharma threatened her with a pistol and thereafter he opened the cupboard and took away valuables from the cupboard. In cross-examination this witness admits that her father-in-law had two wives. She denies knowing the name of her elder ‘Saas’ and denies that Joga Devi is the first wife of Raghunath Sharma. 5. P.W. 2, Rajmuni Devi is the second wife of Raghunath Sharma. She supports the prosecution case. In her cross-examination she states that she cannot hear and see very well. She denies knowing the name of her elder ‘Saas’ and denies that Joga Devi is the first wife of Raghunath Sharma. 5. P.W. 2, Rajmuni Devi is the second wife of Raghunath Sharma. She supports the prosecution case. In her cross-examination she states that she cannot hear and see very well. She has also stated that there is a land dispute with Sonapati and admits that Sonapati is her step son and lives in the same house and that both of them share a common ‘Aangan’. 6. P.W. 3, Sushila Devi is the married daughter of the informant. According to her she had come for a visit to her father’s house, on the day on which the occurrence had taken place. According to her Sonapati, Baidyanath and Gopal had committed theft. 7. P.W. 4 Raghunath Sharma supports the allegations made in the complaint case. He admits that Sonapati is his son and that the police station is just 100 yards from his house. 8. P.W. 5 Gauri Shankar Sharma is the nephew of the complainant. He also admits the relationship between the parties. 9. Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the Lower Court is perverse in view of the fact that the Lower Court has concluded after considering each witness that the evidence is ‘Vichardhin’, it is submitted that having said that the Court below could not have acquitted the accused persons in this case. 10. On perusal of the judgment as well as the evidence, it would appear that the submissions of the counsel for the appellant are without any basis. At paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Court has analyzed the evidence of each and every witness and has concluded that they are not fit to be believed and that the case has been filed because of dispute between the family regarding land. The Trial Court has noticed that the witnesses have acknowledged that the accused persons are related to the complainant and are the step brother-in-law and the steps son of Raghunath Sharma. It may be noted that the Court has relied on the evidence of the second wife of Raghunath Sharma, P.W. 2 who has clearly stated that they were all sharing a common ‘Aangan’. It may be noted that the Court has relied on the evidence of the second wife of Raghunath Sharma, P.W. 2 who has clearly stated that they were all sharing a common ‘Aangan’. In view of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be believed that somebody had knocked on the main door of the house of the informant and he opened the door because he believed that it would have been a patient who had come for treatment. 11. While considering the evidence, this Court finds that the Trial Court’s reasoning is in accordance with law. The entire episode as narrated by the complainant and his daughters who are related to the accused persons being step sisters of the accused Sonapati Sharma seems unbelievable and unrealistic. 12. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed.