"\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DlVlSlON BENCH CGRAM: HONsBLE SHRI -RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J.'& HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. CLMP. N0. 570 of 2008 ' St’ate of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, District Koriya (0G) VERSUS Jugesh Kushwaha, S/o Ravishankar Respondent Kushwaha, agead about 29 years, occupation Agriculturist, r/o Village Chhindiya, P.S. Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) Application for qrant of leave to appeal UIS 378 (3) and memo of appeal uls 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1 973 Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer, for the Statefpetitioner. Applicant! Appellant Non-applicant ORDER (22“ July, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J Shr J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer, is heard on LA. i Nam/2008, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisned that the petitioner/ State has succeeded in showing sufficient . caUSe for the de’lay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr..P.C. 3) LA. No.01 of 2008, therefore, is aiiowed and the delay of 11 days in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned. 4) ‘ Shri J.A. Lohani, learned P'anel Lawyer is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondentf accused Jugesh Kushwaha. 5) Police Patna, District Koriya, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of the prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondent/ accused Jugesh Kushwaha for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the lndian Penal Code, on the accusation of his having committed seyeral acts of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will for a period of about 9 years between 1997 and 2006. 6) The respondent! accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charge framed by the trial Court under Section 3?6 of the lndian Penal Code. 7) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the entire episode. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted respondent/ accused Jugesh Kushwaha vide impugned judgment dated 28—05-2008. \ _\ @ 8) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer Vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecutrlx was a consenting party to the entire episode and in acquittlng respon‘dent/ accused Jugesh Kushwaha. Q) The prosecutrix in the present case is a grown-up married woman, aged about 35 years. Her husband Prakash died sometime in the year 1995. According to her own admission, she fell in love with the accused sometime in the year 1997 and their relationship continued up to the year 2006. During this period, the prosecutrix did not complain to anyone about the alleged forcible sexual intercourse by the accused with her. lt appears- that in the year 2006 when she delivered a child and the accused ailegedly refused to marry her, then the First information Report was lodged after about 9 years of the first alleged forcible act of sexual intercourse by the accused. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer; the findings recorded by the triat Court leading to acquittal of respondent I accused Jugesh Kushwaha; 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 of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent i accused Jugesh Kushwaha, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. i t 11) Mere possibmty of another View on the prosecution evidence win not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 12) lWe, therefore, do not find any ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent! accused Jugesh 'ua‘ ’ subbu ,A v Kushwaha. 13) The petition filed ’ by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. \‘ Sd/- sw— . R.N. ‘Chandrakar a \ CHIEF JUSTICE is r Jhdge V e; A WWW l ,