IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.237 of 2008 YASMIN KHATOON D/O MD. AKHTAR, R/O LAKHUI KHAS, P.S. JAMUI, DIST. JAMUI -- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHOTU MIAN SON OF ASGAR MIAN 3. ASGAR MIAN SON OF AKBAR MIAN --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocate. For the O.Ps : Mr. Sumant Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. B.M.P. Sinha, APP ----------- 03 03.09.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and opposite parties. Petitioner is the informant and thus igniter of the case which gave rise to Sessions trial no. 275 of 2006 of the Court of Fast Track Court no.II Jamui, whereunder the opposite parties herein who are son and father respectively were tried and acquitted of the charge framed under Sections 376 of the Penal Code. It may be noted here that F.I.R. was lodged against 07 named accused persons. During investigation 05 of them were found to have been falsely implicated in this case and accordingly charge sheet was filed only against the father and son which gave rise to the Trial. As per the prosecution case the victim (PW10) was working in the house of the accuseds as maid. It is alleged that Chotu Mian (opposite party no.2) committed rape on her. Subsequently she was given an assurance that he would marry with her. This happened 06 months earlier. On one day the parents of Chotu Miya saw them in a compromising position whereafter the parents of the victim was called in and it was said that the pregnancy which she allegedly carried may be aborted for which they shall bear the cost. It is the prosecution case that the girl for the first time made the aforesaid disclosure on 12. 09.2005 stating therein that for the last 06 months she was being sexually exploited by Chotu Miyan. It is further the prosecution case that a panchayati was called in wherein the issues were discussed but the accused persons backed out from the promise as a result whereof a written report was lodged on 17.09.2005 which bore the L.T.I. of the victim. At the trial altogether 11 witnesses were examined. Out of them PW’s 2 and 8 who are said to be the independent witnesses supporting the discloser made by the victim girl and holding of Panchayati in respect thereof have been declared hostile. PW’s 3 and 4 are the other witnesses with regard to the holding of panchayati in connection with the present occurrence prior to lodging of the case. PW’s 5, 6 and 7 are the doctors who have been examined in this case. PW’s 5 and 6 are on record stating that the girl was assessed between 17 to 18 years of age. It may be noted here that as per the F.I.R. the girl was alleged to be 13/14 years of age. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer of the case. On a consideration of the materials brought on record, learned trial Court has taken a view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and accordingly the judgment and order of acquittal has been recorded. While reaching at the said conclusion, learned trial Court has considered the evidence of the victim girl wherein she has categorically stated that rape was once committed on her by Chotu Mian. Learned trial Court has concluded if that be the position then why she kept mum for 06 months and after expiry of 06 months such disclosure was made to the parents leading to panchayati whereafter lodging of the case. While evaluating the evidence of PW’s 3 and 4 learned trial Court has found that they had not made any such statement before the Investigating Officer. Learned Court below has also kept in focus the fact that the girl was not minor as per the assessment of the doctor and the allegation of rape having been committed once on her was made 06 months earlier. There was thus absolutely no explanation for not lodging the case for 06 months. Back ground facts have also been taken into consideration by learned trial Court. In the face of these facts emanating from the record finding of not guilty has been recorded which, in my view cannot be said to be perverse or wholly illegal meriting any interference. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)