;.,)=•' f€ '<!i.N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH S8P . (-• CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Cr.M.P. No. of 2008 Appellant Non-apDlicant The State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Patharia, District ~ Bilaspur VERSUS Dilendra @ Nanu, s/o. Chhedilal Yadav, aged about 20 years, R/o. Sodi, Nijam P.S. Patharia, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ApDlicaUon Tor arant of leave to appeal U/S 378 (31 and memo of appeal u/s 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, teamed Panel Lawyer, for the State/petitioner. ORDER (29th June, 2010) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer.is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of leamed Panel La^Myer and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioner/State hassucceeded in showing sufTicient cause for the deiay in filing the petition underSection 378(3) of Cr.P.C. ^wfffwir 3. I.A. No.01 of 2008, therefore, is altowed and the delay of 39 days in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Dilendra @ Nanu of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment dated 26-02-2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.68/2007. 5. Police Patharia, District Bllaspur, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of the prosK;utrix charge-sheeted respondenV accused Dilendra @ Nanu for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, on the accusation of his having committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her eonsent and against herwill for a period of about 10 months. 6. The respondent/ accused abjured his gutlt and pleaded false implieation to the charge framed by the trial Court under Section 376 ofthe tndian Penal Code. 7. At the triat, the above charge against the respondent/ accused was sought to be proved on the evidence of PW1 Ajit Kumar, PW2 Ranjit Kumar Gayakward, PW3 Heera Das Patre, RA/4 Chameti, PW5 Titra, R/V6 Hriday Das, RA/7 Smt. l^lpana Chechane, PW8 Babulat, PW9 Ravi Shankar Pandey, PW10 Dr. A.M. Manjhi, PW11 Shiv Prasad, PW12 Ravikanth Bhoste, PW13 ^^' %,. ,—.?"^ ws"-. v., K '->.±, •ji'f^—' »s '". D.R. Singraul, RA/14 Dr. George M. Khakha and PW15 P.L. Dewangan. 8. The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution found that the prosecutrix on the date of the incident was aged more than 19 years and she was a consenting party to the entire episode. On the above flndings, the trial Court acquitted respondent/ accused Dilendra @ Nanu vide impugned judgment dated 26-02-2008. 9. Shri J.A. Lohani, tearned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecutrix was aged more than 19 years on the date of the incident and that she was a consenting party to the entire episode. 10. The prosecutrix on her ossiTication test was found to be aged more than 19 years. Though the first alteged act of forcibte sexual intercourse by the respondent/ accused is said to have been committed sometime in November/ December, 2005, the First Information Report for the firet time came to be lodged after about 10 months on 28-09-2006. It has come in the evidence of the prosecutrix and her brother that the First Information Report was lodged by the prosecutrix against the accused since he refused to marry the prosecutrix and maintain her son and that if the accused would have married the prosecutrix, they would not have lodged the report against him. ^~^———— :^Ei[""f"?'Tm"'nTiH?; •' •':' 4 WIS&38® 11. On due consideration of the submissions of leamed Panel Lawyer; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittat of respondent / accused Dilendra @ Nanu; 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 flndings recorded by the tfial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Dilendra @ Nanu, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 12. 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. 13. We, therefore, do not find any ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Dilendra @ Nanu. 14. The petition filed by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJusrice Subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge !•