IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.4 of 2009 DAHAUR MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Arun Kumar & Mr. Hanslal Kumar, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties: Parmeshwar Mehta, APP 03 22.01.2009 Heard. Petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25th of September, 2008. By the impugned order/judgment opposite party no.2, namely, Ramashray Singh has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 380,498 and 497 of the Penal Code. The complainant is the brother-in-law of the accused. Allegation leveled in the complaint is that this opposite party was found engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife (Tetari Devi). It is further the prosecution case that on the next morning his wife left home with all her belongings. The said lady (Tetari Devi) has been produced in this case by the defence as D.W.1. The court has estimated her age to be 75 years. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial court has also found that the bone of contention, in fact, is with regard to the alienation of the property which aforesaid Tetari Devi seemingly inherited from her father. The evidence on record further indicates that this complainant has contracted second marriage and he has many offsprings. 2 In this background the evidence on record has been evaluated by the trial court in paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment. This court finds no patent illegality in consideration of the matter by the learned trial court. Application seeking leave to appeal stands rejected. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)