JUDGMENT : I.A. No.1707 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of special leave to present this acquittal appeal which has been preferred against the judgment dated 7th June, 2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.2750 of 2009 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has convicted one out of the three accused persons namely Akhilesh Pandey but acquitted the two private respondents being Mukesh Pandey and Rajesh Pandey. 2. The brief facts of this case is that the accused persons of this case entered into the house of the complainant and started abusing her in filthy language and also threatened her to withdraw the case instituted by her and when the complainant did not agree for the same, the accused persons assaulted her and broke the lock of her shop and took away all the articles. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for which the accused persons faced the trial. 3. In support of its case, the complainant examined four witnesses. C.W.1-Rameshwar Mahto and C.W.2- Rani Sinha are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the C.W.3- Monika Sinha and C.W.4- Illa Rani Sahay are not named in the witness column of the complaint and they were introduced by the complainant at a later stage. The presence of the C.W.4 at the place of occurrence is not mentioned in the complaint nor has anything been stated about her presence at the place of occurrence by the witnesses at the stage of enquiry. 4. C.W.3-Monika Sinha who is the daughter of the complainant has stated that three accused persons of the case misbehaved with the complainant and thereafter she stated that Akhilesh Pandey who has been convicted and Mukesh Pandey- one of the private respondents of this appeal talked about withdrawing the case or else they will kill the complainant. 4. C.W.3-Monika Sinha who is the daughter of the complainant has stated that three accused persons of the case misbehaved with the complainant and thereafter she stated that Akhilesh Pandey who has been convicted and Mukesh Pandey- one of the private respondents of this appeal talked about withdrawing the case or else they will kill the complainant. Then she specifically stated about Akhilesh Pandey who has been convicted, of having pointing gun upon the complainant and the said Akhilesh Pandey got the lock of the shop of the complainant broken and he got all the articles removed from the said shop and Rajesh Pandey, one of the private respondents called a truck and took away the articles of the C.W.3 and her mother the complainant. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held that the C.W.3 or C.W.4 have not stated anything about the two private respondents of this appeal as far as the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned and considered the fact that the C.W.1 and C.W.2 are not eye-witnesses and acquitted the two private respondents of this appeal and convicted Akhilesh Pandey. 6. Ms. Sunita Kumari the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below did not consider the fact that the C.W.3 has specifically stated about all the three persons misbehaving with the complainant-C.W.4. It is further submitted that though in the subsequent paragraphs of her deposition the C.W.3 has specifically stated that Akhilesh Pandey has committed the offences yet the learned trial court ought to have read the said portion of the testimony of the said witness with her earlier separate statement at the beginning of her deposition that other accused persons were also present. It is then submitted that the presence of the two private respondents at the place of occurrence mentioned at the beginning of the deposition deems that she has stated about the two private respondents of this appeal also have committed the offence for which their co-accused has been convicted. It is then submitted that the two private respondents of this appeal ought to have convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well. Hence, it is submitted that the appellant be granted special leave as envisaged under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for presenting this appeal. 7. Learned Addl. It is then submitted that the two private respondents of this appeal ought to have convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well. Hence, it is submitted that the appellant be granted special leave as envisaged under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for presenting this appeal. 7. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the fact that the witnesses have not specifically stated about the involvement of the private respondents of this appeal, hence, rightly acquitted them. It is further submitted that in a criminal case, unless a witness specifically states something against the accused in his deposition, the inference cannot be drawn from his statement made in earlier paragraph of the deposition to bring home the charges against the accused facing the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the special leave for presenting this appeal ought not to be given to the appellant. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the record, I find that the C.W.3 has not specifically stated about either of the private respondents namely Rajesh Pandey and Mukesh Pandey having either caused hurt to the complainant or intentionally insulting and thereby gave provocation to the complainant of such nature likely that such provocation will cause the complainant to break the public peace or to commit any offence. Thus there is no apparent illegality or gross error in the impugned judgment. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for warranting granting of special leave under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for presenting this acquittal appeal. Accordingly, this Interlocutory application, being without any merit is rejected and consequently, this Acquittal Appeal is also dismissed.