IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA NO.19 OF 2009 JAHANA KHATOON, DAUGHTER OF MD. MOINUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAKPARA, POLICE STATION SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. AMIR, SON OF MD. SULTAN 3. MOHAMMAD SULTAN, SON OF LATE MD. ABDUL 4. JAINAB KHATOON, WIFE OF MD. SULTAN 5. MOHAMAD KHATUR, SON OF MD. SULTAN 6. MOHAMAD TAIAB, SON OF MD. SULTAN 7. MOHAMAD ROJIT, SON OF MD. SULTAN 8. MOHAMMAD SAMID, SON OF MD. SULTAN 9. MOHAMAD ISLAM, SON OF LATE SAKIL 10. MOHAMMAD SUBHAN, SON OF SIRAJ KHAN ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAKPARA, POLICE STATION SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA ******** 6 17/04/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.12.2008 by which the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 10 have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 376, 313 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that Opposite Party No. 2 is said to have allured the complainant PW 5, that he will marry her and entered into sexual relationship with her which continued for about 4-5 months. On 12.02.2004 the complainant came to know about her pregnancy and had an ultrasound on 13.02.2004. On 13.02.2004, it is alleged that all the Opposite Parties and family members of Opposite Party No. 2 took the 2 complainant on a rickshaw and got her pregnancy aborted. The Trial Court after considering the evidence and exhibits filed in this case including the ultrasound report has come to the conclusion that the ultrasound report belongs to a third person and does not belong to the lady in question. There are two ultrasound reports, one marked as X and another as X/1. It is said that X is of one Jahana Khatoon whereas X/1 is of Johara Khatoon. The age of the person who had the ultrasound is 19-20 years which also does not tally with the age of the complainant. The Trial Court further found that there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The said occurrence is of 13.02.2004, after which a panchayati was held and in that panchayati, Opposite Party No. 2 refused to accept that he had entered into any relationship with the complainant and on that ground he also refused to accept marriage with the complainant. Thereafter on 23.03.2004, the complaint filed the complaint petition. On the basis of the evidence and the exhibits, the Trial Court held that offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved against Opposite Party No. 2 and the offences under Sections 313, 120B read with 3 section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have not been proved against the other co-accused persons in this case. Since the petitioner has not been able to prove that Opposite Party had sexual intercourse with her for 4 or 5 months which resulted in a pregnancy, the Trial Court has also not considered the submission made by learned Counsel, that an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against Opposite Party No. 2. I find no peversity in the judgment and the reasons given in the said judgment and as such the SLA is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )