Appljcant Appellant HiGH COUR7 OF CHHATTiSSARH AT BILASPUR CL&P^o.5W_^2MO_ State of Madhya Pradesh (ROW Chhattisgarh) through S.H.O. P.S. Ralpur. Non-appjjcants Respondents i/eraus 1. Virendra Kumar Shukia S/o Late Shri Ram Avatar Shukia, aged about 4i years R/o Nshru Nagar, Raipur (?/,.P.) (Now C.G.) 2. Durgaprasad Patsriya S?'o Gangaprasad Pateriya R/o Anupam Nagar, Raipur. 3. Vijay Slngh S/o Manmohan S'ngh agsd about 52 years, R/o 2/6 Civll Line, Raipur (M.P.) (Now C.G.) 4. P.K.Soni S/o C.L.SORS, Rfo KankaSipara, aged about 40 years. 5. D.C.Chopda S/o Jamunsiai Chopda aged about 69 years, R/o Panchasheel Nagar, Raipur 6. D.K.Mahobia S/o R.Mahobia, aged about 48 years, R,'o Liiii Chowk, Raipur. 7. Manoj Dubey S/o Pramod Dube, aged about 43 years, R/o Kankals Para, Raiour. 8. C.K.Agrawai S/o Late Sh" Ram Harikiai, aged about 43 ysars. R/o Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur. 9. D.D.Shukia S/o Shri Ramvishsi Shukia, aged afaout 43 ysars, R/o Samata Colony, Raipur (M.P.) (Now C.G.) 10. Awdesh Kuma.r S/o Hari Tiwari, aged about 40 years, R/o Lakhsnagar, Raipur. 11. Phooichand Amra S/o Vaiiabh Das, aged about 48 years, R/o Haivai Line, Raipur (M.P.) (Now C.G.). 12. Shyam Sharma S/o Sampatiai, aged about 38 years, n/o Haivas Lins, Raipur (M.P.) (Now C.G.). 13. Santosh Gupta S'o Dwsrika Prasad, aged about 35 years, R./o Hatvai Lma, Rsipur. (Application for grant of teave to appeai under Sectjon 378(!!l) of Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'&ie Mr. T.P. Sharma, <J.) Mr.R.K.Jha, Deputy Government Advocste forths appiicanVState. .'"N; flS @ ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 26tn March, 2011) 1. This ss a petifion for ieave So appesi against fhs judgment of acquittai a'ated 7.2.2000 passed by the Judiciai Magistrats First Ciass, Raipur irs Criminai Case No.849/96. 2. i have heard leamed counsei for the appiicant, perused the judgment impugned and record ofthe irisi Court. 3. As per judgment impugned, ihe tris! Court has acquftted the respondenis after giving benefit of doubt, especiaiiy on ths ground of non-axaminatjon of matenal witness and non-msntsoning the nam®of pereon who 'nas pushscs Rohit and Pratibha snd specific act attri&uted to differsnt respondents who are not unknown to the compiainant and his wrtnessss. 4. Considering the faci that the triai Court has acquittsd the rssporsdants on fhe ground that prosecuiion has not provsd ths case beyond ali shadow of doubt, do not sny ground for grani of ieave to appeai against the judgment of acquittai. 5. Consequentiy, the appiteation for granf ef Seave to appeai is iiabie to be aismissed and it is herebydismissed. Sd/- l-P. Sharma Judge f^