HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Criminal Revision No. 530 of 2007 Applicant Satrupa Bai, wife of Kumar Sinha, aged about 27 years, residence of village Sonpun’. Police Station Saja. Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg, Chlgattisgarh. Versus Respondents 1‘ Rajendra Lodhi, son of Alakhram Lodhi, aged about 34 years, residence of village Sonpuri, Police Station Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Saja, District Burg, Chhatiisgarh. Criminal Revision under Section 3n r.w. Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Present 2 Shri Shri Praveen Dhurandhar. counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.R.Patankar, counsei for the State/respondent No.2. K) ORAL OR ER (Passed on 13 July, 2009) Heard on admission. 2, This Criminal Revision is directed the judgment dated 26.07.2007 delivered in criminal case No, 19/2007 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Bemetara wherehy the non-applicant No.1 was acquitted of the charge under Section 354 and 5063 of the l.P.C‘ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgment is contrary to law since merely on the basis of some contradictions, the learned trial Judge has acquitted non-applicant No.1. 4. Having considered the submission, l have perused the record of Criminal Case No. 19/2007. The learned trial Judge had an opportunity for seeing the demeanor of the prosecutrix and has, on appreciation of evidence, held that the charge under Sections 354 and 5068 of the l.P.C. was not established against the non-applicant No.1. The prosecutrix had admitted that before the incident a quarrel had taken place between the non-applicant No.1 @ and her husband. Ramprasad P.W.3, to whom the prosecutrix has narrated the incident, did not suppoh the prosecution. Komaldas. Kotwar P.W.5 also did not depose about any act on the part of the non-applicant No.1 to outrage the modesty of the petitioner. Bodhan P.W.6 also turned hostile. 5. Having thus considered the evidence ted by the prosecution, I am of the considered opinion that no such iliegaiity as would warrant interference in the n impugned judgment in exercise of revisionai jurisdiction is seen. 6. This revision is without meritand is accordingiy dismissed at the stage of admission. / he» 1/ sty— IP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH Judge DIL