C.R. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. A Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appears for the private respondents. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order, dated 31.03.2005, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj in CR Case No. 815 of 2004, under Sections 448/323/379 IPC. By the impugned Judgment and order the learned Additional CJM has acquitted the accused persons i.e. the private respondents. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the complainant, as appellant, alter obtaining leave, has preferred this appeal.

2. The complainant in her complaint alleged that a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. was instituted in the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Karimganj against the accused persons and thereafter, out of grudge, the accused persons, on the night of 2.12.2003 in between 10 to 11 o'clock at night, being armed with deadly weapons entered the house of the appellant by breaking open the lock of the grill of the house and assaulted her, outraging her modesty. In the said complaint, she has also alleged that the accused persons, by using weapon i.e. dao, had threatened her and her two children and forcefully took away one golden chain, one colour TV set, one CD machine and one VIP suitcase containing other properties. The said complaint, filed on 3.12.2003, before the learned CJM, Karimganj was registered as CR Case No. 1792 of 2003 and forwarded to the police for registering a case. Accordingly, the police registered a case and at the completion of the investigation submitted final report on 31.1.2004 in connection with Badarpur PS Case No. 205 of 2003. Aggrieved by the said final report, the complainant filed a protest petition before the learned CJM and the same was registered as Complaint Case No. 818 of 2004. The learned Addl. CJM after examining the complainant took cognizance of offence under Section 447/323/379/506 IPC and proceeded with the matter.

3. The complainant examined as many as three witnesses in support of her case. At the close of the evidence for the complainant, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. They denied the allegations, thought against them, and declined to adduce any defense evidence. The learned CJM considering the evidence, on record, came to the findings that there were material contradictions in the evidence of the said three witnesses and as such their evidence was not reliable. The learned Addl. CJM also declined to accept the said evidence of PWs on the ground that all the witnesses were interested witnesses and that there was no supporting evidence from any independent witnesses.

4. The learned trial judge also observed that the articles, alleged to be forcefully taken away by the accused persons, not being recovered from the accused persons, the evidence that the accused persons had forcefully taken away the said articles was not believable.

5. With the above findings the learned Addl. CJM concluded that the complainant foiled to prove the charges, brought under Section 448/379/323 IPC, against the accused persons, beyond all reasonable doubt Accordingly, the learned Addl. CJM, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused persons and set them at liberty.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the complainant has come up with this appeal. Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, referring to the complaint filed by the complainant and the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the said evidence recorded by the leaned Addl. CJM prima facie constitute an offence of dacoity punishable by Section 395 IPC and as such, learned Addl. CJM ought to have committed the case to the Court of Sessions, instead of disposing the same without jurisdiction.

7. In support of his contention the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has referred to the decision held in the case of Venu @ Venugopal Vs. Sta