\xé, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRE SUNIL KUMAR'SINHA, J. Cr. M. P. N0. 186 of 2008. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Janjgir Champa (CG) Appeuant VERSUS Non-appiicant R/o Lahudi Kodia, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Siwan (Bihar). Agglication uls 378 (3) for grant of leave to aggeat and memerandum of agpeal uls 378 m of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Present: Shri ‘Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General fo the State/petitioner. ORDER (06th April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing I.A.No.01/2008, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record. 2) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent! accused Surendra Rai. 3) Police Champa, District Janjgir Champa, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of the d Surendra Rai, Slo Chathu Yaav, aged about 21 years. r @ prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondent/ accused Surendra Rai, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, on the accusation of his having kidnapped / abducted the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will during the period of about four months between April,2007 and August,2007. 4) The reSpondent/ accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the lndian Penal Code. The respondent/ accused further pleaded that the prosecutrix was in love with him and she left her parents’ home on her own free will. 5) At the trial, the above charges against the respondent/ accused were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW-1 Dr. V.K. Agrawal, PW-2 Dr. Prakash Chand Jain, PW-3 Anuradha, PW-4 Ramji Pandit, PW-5 Jairam Prasad, PW-6 Urmila, PW—7 V.K. Awsthi, PW—8 Vishnu Kumar Gupta, PW-Q Suresh Kumar Soni, PW-10 Rajesh Joshi, PW-11 Dr. G.S. Kanwar, PW—12 Dr. Anil .PratapSingh and PW—13 Preetam Yadav. 6) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution in general and that of the prosecutrix in particular held that the prosecution could not establish that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident; the conduct of the prosecutrix during the period of about four months when she remained in the company of the respondent/ accused establishes that she was a consenting party to the entire / episode. The trial Court, on the above findings, acquitted respondent/ accused Surendra Rai, of the charges framed against him vide impugned judgment dated 14.01.2008, passed in Sessions Triai No. 1 96/2007. 7) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additionai Advocate General, vehemently argued that the t'riai Court has erred in holding that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age and that she was a consenting party to the entire episode. 8) Though the prosecutrix and her parents claimed that the prosecutrix was aged about 16 years, her ossification test established that she was above 18 years and below 19 years on the date of her medical examination. Though the prosecution alleged that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 01 07.1991, no documentary evidence, such as entry in the Kotwar register was produced before the trial Court. The lone documentary evidence about her date of birth being 01.07.1991 was a High School Certificate (Ex.P/10), which cannot be taken as substantive evidence as no evidence was led before the trial Court to establish that the above date of birth, 01 .07.1 991 was recorded in the school records on whose information. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident. 9) Even according to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix remained in the company of the respondent! accused for a period of about four months. It has come in the evidence of the prosecutrix herseif that the respondent/ accused remained in their house for sufficiently long time as tenant. In her case-diary statement she categorically stated that she was in love with the accused. The prosecutrix travelled with the accused from Champa to Delhi; Delhi to Jalandhar and Jalandhar to Kolkata in different mode of conveyance. Duriné‘ all these journeys, she did not complain to any one about the fact that the accused was taking her forcibly and without her consent. The trial Court, in our opinion, on the above conduct of the prosecutrix has rightly inferred that she was a consenting party to the entire episode. 10)> On due consideration of the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondent I accused; the evidence led by the prOsecution at the trial in general and that of the prosecutrix in particular; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent I accused Surendra Rai, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 11) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 13) The petition tiled by the petitioner / state under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of Ieave to appeal against the acquittai of respondent/ accused Surendra Rai, therefore, fails and is hereby subbu ,s ~ i dismissed. \N H W e WKR Sd/_ { CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/. SUN’L KUMAR sINHA