(<5 ,*. Petitionsr ComDlainant HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BIL4SPUR Cr.M.P.No.53 of 2010 Sukit Rem Sshare, S/o Late Shr' Niranian 5ahare. aiaed about 62 vears. Retired Postai Employee, R/o Lalbagicha, Ward Dhamtcr'i, Tahsil & Dist.&hamtari (C.6.) Versus Dwarikc Prasad Lotre, S/o Rnghula! Accused Lotre. R/o AAamta Naqar, Police Station City Kotwaii, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & bistrict Rajnandgaon (C-S.) (Applicatio" for grait of leeye to oppea! under section 378 (4) of -riie Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bteMr.T.P. Shsrma. -J.) Mr- Rajendr*" Tripa+hi, counssl for the petitioner. ORDER ffsssed ors 28th Jarsya.-y. 2010) 1. TTi's is QH szppiicQtion for gront of le/xye to c^pecl Q^ainst the Juciginent of acquifta! dated 2.9.2009 passed by the Judicia! Magistr'ate Fir'st Clciss, t)hQrnt<?ri, I" Cri?ninQ! CQSS No.10/07, wher'eby leorned Judicin! A^agis+rate F!r'st CSoss acquitted the respondent of the char'ge of Section 380 of tiie India" Penal Code on the ground thot ths co">plain&"t hcs "ot orov^d its CQS€ bsvond shadow of doubt. p,. -. , —.„ . .-„ ^^.-.^ ^.^^.^....^...^.^.^.^.^; -.<-.-,.. 2. Lecrned counsg! for "riie pet'tioner subm'ts that the tr'iai Court has not isonsidered the eyidence of the comoiainant end its wi+nesses which were suffi€is:Htfor coiivlct'o?i of ^f?s r>ssj3ondsrtt. 3- I ho.ve hear'd learned counsel for the pe+itioner', perused the judgment impugned cnd copy of the evldencs of the witnesse.s- B/- - z- 4. After considering the sntire svider'ce Q"d di^uts relGtin^ to Section 498-A of the Tyidiar1 Peno.! Cods. 'l^hs trici! Court hns acsuitt^d the respondent after" giving benefit of doubt. I d" not find any il'egali+y in the findinQ OJF ths tr'a! Court. 5- Cor!!-'3SQus'nt!v. ths c'DD'icxxt'o!'1 is lictbW to be d?SFnlss%d Qnd it is ftccor<iit^fti dismissed. y SdA T.P. Sharma Judge