CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. CJ, State of Chhattisgarh, Throug! Dlstrict Magistrate, Korea (CG) Herison Das, S/o Hemilton Das, Aged about - 25 years, R/o Ward No.9, Moharpara, Manendragarh, District-Korea (CG) memorandum ofapDeai u/s 378 $11 oTCode ofCrimina! Procedure 1973 Present: Shri Sudhir Bajpai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/petitioner. •th The following order of the Court was passed Shri Sudhir:Bajpai, leamedDeputyGevernmentAdyocate is heard on I.A.No.01/2009, an application for condonation of the delay in fiiing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioner/State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3^ofCr.P.C. . .: ! •I1 :i" s 3) I.A.NO.Q1/2009, therefore, isallowed and the delay of 62 days in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned. 4) Learned Deputy Government Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Herison Das. 5) Police Manendragarh, District Korea after completion ofthe investigation ofthecase registered on the report ofthe prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondent/ accused Herison tpas, forthe alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the indian Penat Code, on the accusation of his having committed sexuai intercourse with the prosecutrix without herconsentand against her will during the period of about 4 -5 months prior to lodging ofthe First Information Reporton 31.05.2008. 6) The respondent/ accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication tothe charges framed bythetriai Court. 7) At the trial, the above charges against the respondent/ accused were sought to be proved on theevidence of PW-1 DrjSK Gupta, PW-2 Smt Varsha Singh, PW-3 Dr SS Singh, FSVV-4 Neelima Kujur, PW-5 Neelmani Das, PW-6 Yomel Das, I3W-7 Siril Das, PW-SAjay Kumar,PW-9 Sashikata Markam. ; 8) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the' entire evidencp by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of the prQseGijtrix in particular found that the prosecution evidence fell short establishing the above chai^es against the respondent / aeci!!^c!|; The trial Court, therefore, acquitted respondent /; aee|(^^^ led lof: t.''. "• '< :i i 1:''i:l^!'.l vw 1"-:.|!(1 81H 1111 isa 1'Miii Herison Das vide impugned judgment dated 12.12.2008, passed in Sessions Trial No. 104/2008. 9) Shri Sudhir Bajpai, learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently argued that the triai Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds. Learned Deputy Government Advocate further submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrixwhich was corroborated bythe evidence of other prosecution witnesses was more than sufficient for establishing the eharges against the respondent/accused. 10) The prosecutrix was a grown up woman aged about 35 - 36 years. Though in her First Information Report it was mentioned that the first alieged act of sexual intercourse was eommitted by the respondent /accused in the year 2008, in her evidence in the Court she stated that, the first act was Gommitted in the year 1999. If her evidence in the Court is to be believed, then, the First Information Report came to be lodged after more thanseven years ofthe first alieged act of sexual intercourse by the accused. 11) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittai of the respondent / accused; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and thstof the prosecutrix in particular; and the above mentioned broad features of thecase, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the tria! Court leading tQacquittal of respondent / accused Herison Das do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. r • y KS iubbu 12) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence wi!l not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference inan appeal against acquittal. 13) The petition filed by the petitloner / State under Section <t 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, is liable to be djsmissed and is herebv dismissed. Sd/T Ouef Justfce Sd/- ' Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge I'f^^NBI^