WW,W,W 11mm m o’mrpr $r7/ WW (W) m 2009‘ mmmm WWWwWge’tW ammm $aimé11é$ l RT F CHHAlTlsGARH AT BILASPUR N THE HIGH COU ‘‘ CR. .P. No. 59112007 W APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (3) AND MEMORANDUM OI: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1} OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROgEDURE, 1973 Applicant State of Chhat‘tisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, District Kanker (CG) Appellant Versus Non-appiicants ‘I. Vi}ay Kumar, 8/0 Jailal Kawde, Aged about 23 years, Occupation — Agriculturkst RIO Village Badegouri, Thana —Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) 2. Nirmal Kange, S/o Baiiram Kange, Aged about 27 years, Occupation- Agricuiturist, R/o Viiiage Badegouri, Thana- Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) i i i DB: HONIBLE S HRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA & HOWBLE S HR! JUSTICE T.P.SHARMA, J.J. 11 .22008 a»: ’\\D\ s ITI DK GWaIre, Dy GOVT. AdVOCate fOr the AppIICanI \\ 7\\ 3%qaEmRLE%WM@f$wwg QmnmP; 64; Wm m 2001 WW (W) WWW ammm WWiwm $W3Tté¥1 mmmm -. 2r— The applicant has preferred this petition for grant of leave to file appear under Section 378 (3) along with Memorandum of appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as also LA. No. 01/08, application for condonation of deiay in filing :he petition, as the same has been preferred with a delay of‘r38 days. Heard. The respondents were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of the lndiar Penal Code for committing gang rape with the prosecutrix! aged about 35 years, who has been examined as Prosecution Witness No. 3. tement of the prosecutrix, it is evident that the prosecutrix resilecl from the s atement given in the First information Report of Ex. PM, wherein she has c tegorically stated that the appellants have From the perusal of the s ‘ committed rape with her. The T ‘al Court after meticulously going through the evidence available on record and appreciating the same in detail has disbelieved the version of the osecutrix and acquitted the appellants from the above charge on the groun that there is no other evidence against the appellants, except the statement of the proxsecutrtx. After perusing the mate ial available on record and the impugned judgment, we do not find any il egaiity or irregularity in the impugned order keh passed by the Sessions Judge, in the result, the petitionf r leave to tile appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appea and LA. No. 01/08 condonation of delay is also dismissed. sa/ l Judge ‘ ”/sf’(CZ, l \ \ T. P. Sharmaf 1 ,‘l DHmENDRA MISHRAI ‘ i, Judge a n