ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22nd December, 2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. No. 645/2003/T.R. No. 1889/2015, where under the accused-opposite party No. 2 has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is suffering from a delay of 15 days for condo-nation, of which I.A. No. 439 of 2017 has also been filed. 3. Upon. consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and for the reasons stated in the instant petition. the delay of 15 clays in preferring the instant petition is condoned. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State on the merits of the case and gone through the impugned judgment. 5. Briefly stated, Complaint Case No. 645 of 2003 was lodged by the complainant alleging that her mother and uncle had given a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the accused (Bhaisur) at the time of her marriage with Baron Kumar Mandal on 22nd July, 2002. The amount was paid for purchase of Hero Honda Passion Motorcycle for the complainant and her husband, which he dishonestly misappropriated. Against the total sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs. Rs. 1.15.000/- was misappropriated after deducting the marriage expenditure. Complainant and her husband requested the accused No. 1 to return the amount. but he always avoided. On 28th March, 2003, she had gone from Dhanbad along with her brother to see her ailing father-in-law at Bhagalpur Hospital. Bhagalpur. She first went to her sasural where both the accused persons did not allow her to enter into the room and accused No. 1 caught hold of her hair and accused No.2 gave severe blow by her legs on her stomach. She was three months pregnant and felt acute pain as a result of assault. She underwent treatment thereafter at Munidih Hospital where her pregnancy was aborted. When the local police did not act on the complaint made by her husband on 20th April. 2003 and 30th May, 2003. the instant complaint was lodged. 6. Complaint case No. 645/2003 was registered under Sections 420, 406, 313, 123 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. She underwent treatment thereafter at Munidih Hospital where her pregnancy was aborted. When the local police did not act on the complaint made by her husband on 20th April. 2003 and 30th May, 2003. the instant complaint was lodged. 6. Complaint case No. 645/2003 was registered under Sections 420, 406, 313, 123 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After solemn affirmation of the complainant and inquiry with three complainant's witnesses under Section 202, Cr PC, accused persons, Arun Mandal and Arti Devi were summoned to appear to face the trial under Sections 323, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 9th October, 2009. Case records of accused Arti Devi was split up and the present opposite party No. 2 faced trial. He pleaded not guilty to the accusation. 7. Complainant examined five witnesses i.e., CW 1 Rekha Devi, CW 2 Parmod Singh, CW 3 Kumari Seema, CW 4 Subodh Kumar Singh and CW 5 Deepak Kumar. 8. CW 1 Rekha Devi is mother of the complainant Kumari Seema, who in her examination-in-chief, deposed about the payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- by Demand Draft and Rs. 20,000/- in cash as gift and dowry for purchase of vehicle. She also stated that Rs. 50,000/- in cash was given to accused Arum Mandal. However, the accused purchased vehicle in his own name and on being asked, did not return the left over amounts of Rs. 1 Lakh. Later on, when her daughter and son-in-law went to see Seema's ailing father-in-law, both the accused Arun and Arti had not allowed her to enter into the house and in fact assaulted her. She also went for or treatment at Bhagalpur. Thereafter she felt gain in the stomach anal was treated by Doctor at Dhanbad where she underwent miscarriage. In her cross-examination after charge, she stated that she was not present at the time of giving draft. She also stated that when the money or cheque were given, she was not present there. Further, when her daughter went to her sasural first, she was not present there and has only heard about it. She further stated that the accused, Arun Mandal had returned Rs. 50,000/- to her daughter on the basis of the Court's order and compromise. She also stated that treatment of assault was done at Bhagalpur and Arun and Barun are brothers. She further stated that the accused, Arun Mandal had returned Rs. 50,000/- to her daughter on the basis of the Court's order and compromise. She also stated that treatment of assault was done at Bhagalpur and Arun and Barun are brothers. She denied the suggestion that there is dispute between both the brothers, therefore false case was lodged. 9. CW 2 Parmod Singh, an employee of BCCL, in his examination-in-chief, had stated that at the time of marriage, the accused Arun Mandal was given a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and separate money was given for motorcycle. On 28th March, 2003 she had gone to her sasural along with her brother Deepak where Arun Mandal and his wife assaulted her on stomach, at that time she was pregnant. She came back to Dhanbad. He further stated that Rs. 20,000/- as cash and draft of Rs. 1,80,000/- was given. In his cross-examination before the charge, he stated that he had not handed over the draft. He further stated that he had gone to the house of the accused only at the time of reception. He had not given any draft to accused, Arun. In his cross-examination after charge, he stated that he was not present at the time when anything was given. He further stated that the complainant is his niece and at the time of assault, he was not there. He had no knowledge that Civil and criminal cases are pending. 10. CW 3 Kumari Seema-complainant, in her examination-in-chief had stated that at the time of marriage, demand draft of Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- in cash was given in the name of Arun Mandal for purchase of vehicle. According to her, her father-in-law was not well, therefore, she went to her sasural at Sabhor, Bhagaipur along with her brother where the accursed and his wife assaulted her and her brother, She underwent abortion at Clinic of Dr. Hazra at Dhanbad after returning from e Bhagalpur. She had gone to hospital at Bhagalpur at Dr. Pawan's nursing home e to see her father-in-law. She did not report about the incident at Bhagalpur of Police Station. In her cross-examination, she further stated that she had gone to s private hospital to visit her father-in-law and when she returned to sasural after visiting her father-in-law, then she was assaulted and her brother was also assaulted in Hospital. Pawan's nursing home e to see her father-in-law. She did not report about the incident at Bhagalpur of Police Station. In her cross-examination, she further stated that she had gone to s private hospital to visit her father-in-law and when she returned to sasural after visiting her father-in-law, then she was assaulted and her brother was also assaulted in Hospital. She also slated that whatever money was given, was not given by her and no money transaction took place in her presence. 11. CW 4 Subodh Kumar Singh is a mechanic. In examination-in-chief, he stated that the complainant, his niece filed a case against accused Arun Handal and Arti Devi. When he had gone to Bhagalpur, Sabhor on 15th July. 2002 he gave two drafts of Rs. 50,000/- each and cash Rs. 48,000/- to the accused for purchase of a motorcycle when Arun. Kumar and Praween Kumar also went along with him. Later on, two demand drafts of Rs. 40,000/- each was given at his brother's house at Munidih. In his cross-examination before charge, he stated that his niece told him about the incident of assault. He stated that he was not present at the time of talk of marriage and Jayant was also present at the time when the draft was given. He also stated that no assault took place in his presence and had only heard about it. 12. CW 5 is a Manager in Private Company, who, in his examination-in-chief, stated that on 27th March, 2003 he was called by his sister Seema Mandal on phone. He had taken her sister to her sasural on 28th March in the morning but the accused did not allow them to eater into the house. after long time when they entered the house, then the accused and his wife assaulted his sister. Thereafter, they went to Bhagalpur where his sister's father-in-law was admitted. The accused and his wife came to the hospital also and assaulted him inside the hospital. People tried to save them in the hospital. His sister had severe pain in her abdomen and had underwent miscarriage after coming from Bhagalpur. 13. Learned trial Court analyzed the evidence on record and found vital contradiction in the statement of the Witnesses adduced by the complainant and the case put forth in the complaint petition. CW 1 Rekha Devi. her mother though had deposed that the amount of Rs. 13. Learned trial Court analyzed the evidence on record and found vital contradiction in the statement of the Witnesses adduced by the complainant and the case put forth in the complaint petition. CW 1 Rekha Devi. her mother though had deposed that the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid as demand draft and Rs. 20,000/- was paid in cash towards gift and dowry for purchase of vehicle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash was also given to the accused, but she was not present at the time of giving draft nor she was present when the money or cheque was given. In the complaint petition, reference was made to mother and uncle of complainant, who had given Rs. 2 lakhs, but the name of uncle was not mentioned in the complaint. There was contradiction in the statement of CW 2, Parmod Singh. He stated that Rs. 2 lakhs was given and separate money was given for purchase of motorcycle. Though he had not given draft but Praween Kumar, who is stated to have given it, was not examined. CW 3, Kumari Seema, the complainant had supported the prosecution story, but CW 4 Subodh Kumar Singh had given yet another version of the case by stating that two demand drafts of Rs. 50,000/- each and cash of Rs. 48,000/- were given for motorcycle to Accused, Arun Kumar and that Praween Kumar had gone along with him. Further two demand drafts of Rs. 40,000/- each were given at his brother's house at Munidih. Statement of CW 3 and CW 4 was at variance to what stated by other complainant’s witnesses including CW 2. He had stated that CW 5 Deepak Kumar is the brother of complainant. He further stated that Jayant was also present when the draft was given but this person was not examined by the complainant. Learned trial Court has disbelieved the entire prosecution story set up in respect of charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Court further analyzed the evidence in relation to the allegation under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and found vital contradiction in the statement of complainant's witnesses. Learned trial Court also found that on one hand, she is stated to have gone to Hospital in Bhagalpur at Dr. Learned trial Court further analyzed the evidence in relation to the allegation under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and found vital contradiction in the statement of complainant's witnesses. Learned trial Court also found that on one hand, she is stated to have gone to Hospital in Bhagalpur at Dr. Pawan's nursing home to see her father-in-law, but on the other hand, she had stated that she had gone to see her father-in-law at Bhagalpur Hospital, Bhagalpur. She had also admitted that she filed the case in Court after two months, and the delay has not been explained. 14. On total consideration of the material evidence on record, the entire prosecution case was found to be suffering from serious contradiction. Learned trial Court therefore proceeded to acquit the accused persons as the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. Though complainant had approached the appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 2016, but the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad allowed permission to withdraw the appeal for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the materials on record and also through the findings of learned trial Court and laboured to establish that quantum of amount alleged to be misappropriated by the accused is more or less sum i.e., Rs. 2 lakhs, both the mother and complainant had in their deposition referred to the same amount. Whether the amount was paid by one or more drafts and by cash also would not dent the case of the prosecution. We, however, after analysing the materials on record and the findings rendered by learned trial Court as noted above, do not find substance in the plea of the petitioner. There is a presumption of double innocence. In case of acquittal of accused after trial. 16. In the wake of the aforesaid materials on record and the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the view that petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of leave to appeal. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.