HEGH £Q$RT£¥F SHE&TTES§ARE 4M? EEL$$P6§i CR.REV. 3%). 225i2004 Champa Sarkar, W,’ o. 8111i Tara}: Sarkar, aged about 34 years}. Oiiice sf tha Life lasurancc Corpoxatiml, Kama-kw, Dismci Bafa‘iar {CQ N322LICA§W Vsrsus State of Chhat‘{i$garh, Through Tim Police Station Bodhghat, Jagdai‘pur Disit. Bastm‘ (CG) WEI‘N $PPLK€AWTS 1. Tarak Sarkar, S} o. ‘ Shri Supad Sarkar, aged about 38 yaars Kavita Sarkax, Dfo. Shri Supady Saxkar, Aged about 26 years Savita Sarkar, D/G. Shri Supad Sarkar, Agsd about 32 ysars Smt. Yashomau' Wlo. Shri Supad Sarkar, Aged about 6O years The above gamed non—applicmt No.1 to 4 am resident of .Ksvraanuuda Ward, Naar Gujrati Samaj, Jagdalpur, Distm‘ct Baswr (CG) §- Ul QR.RE . 13§EDER $ECTEOH 3§7l401 $F E‘HE £R.P.Ch {SB :Hoa’Me wig. T‘P.S3laxma, J.) Pr63€11tz Shu' Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the apph'cant. Shri SanjeEV -Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State] none applicaxlt No‘. 1. Shn' Manoj Mishra, courmel for 1‘6Sp0adent No.2 to 5. $RDER {PaSsed on 26m March 2068; 9 This petition is directed against the order pasaed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdaipur, District Bastax iii Cr. Case No.296/99 whereby the learned trial Couithad convicted aiid sentenced the non— app'iicant No.2 for the oifénca p’unishabls uhd€r Saciion 494 of tha EPC emd acquittal tha non—applicaEts No. 3 to 5. 2. Th6. order impugnad is challeug€d on fha ground that the ujal Court has not appreciatid $116 material availabls on record sufficient for comiicting the non—appiicallts No.3 to 5, ‘ r 3. Heard. 4. ‘Grder impugned perused. ._ hX 5. The applicemt is wiih of the eonwapplicaet N524 Non—applicant No. $ e 8,4 8t, 5 are $i$€€1~§ Emd mother of non~app1icai1t No.2. The applicant has stated that non—applicant No. 2 to 5 demarlded dowry anal subjected her' to orueliy. The non—applicant No.2 has manied another lady namely Apanna and the non-applicemts No. 2 to 5 ousted the appEica’at from her mafirimonial house. 5. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court hae acquitted the non—applicants No. 3 to 5 and convicted and seateoced ehe mon—apph‘cant No.2. 7. The View takell by the. trial Court is hei’ther unjust nor hnproper. l {lo‘not fmd aliy Substahce [m the petition for interference iii the revision filed against the judgment passed by the trial Court. 8. Consequeiit1y, me petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. "" Sdl- T. P. Sharma , Judge r; ‘ WT; ,._(—. 1 g $ug‘:una y