\\tW&Ms »Wl!^ S^Se^a^a^^i^sa^iuei fi.;!i?l: M-A w"ni]^i^<r y,^.:^^ HIGMC^t.lR^^^Hli^ BIWtSIONtENCI-1 ^SQRA^^^^^Ejll^it^El^ ^1QN^iE|si^^ii||,iy^^ AbttlKsant ^ppinahf Non-aiiDlieanl: Respoindent M.GF.C.(PI^NG^371«^ j ^ St^t^ ?ht^ Dfetrict^a9istrate,BastaF<C.G.)" ^^;VERSUSt'':'1...1 .^ Be€^ljal@^©e^8/o.RamS!ngh J^i^a9@Etib|ut27ry^,R/o. A/inag|ChM<rt©Bad9m,RjS. Frezui^uF,dJ5tn^Bastar(C.^ ^PH^ionll3l^%^l^ 'i:^^iiiwti^w^^^M^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ •%G^i'niliilllliii^(irel'4fl^''''''l::;" Present: ShnAj^tl^^sN^ed^^^^^^^^^^ •State/petitior^:^!!1:.'.,',.1:',.;/.' ^©sy^R^i':'^•-1;!.'.-::..1-.^ :W:?^m^itly|^0):^'-:::::-;---^---^ T"r^ ^uc^i^^^^ .l:RajeeYX3iapta^C^.^;.:.'',:;^::;^ Shn J^ t^arij. lelimed^^^F^ que^im ofsirant ^ re^por^ent^aG6us6c^l^i^1.al@Arnee^ 2) Poljce Rrezurpu^ completion of the ^ report oft the pros^u^^ Heei%l^@|j^nr^n^tRei punisMable underlS^ Renal Code^ ^the^a^^^ ir^rcour^with^hepro|ititi^^ m^^ -j lfSiwKiMtiUSWSSi#iKffS!SSSSiSii9^ her will during the period of about two years between August 2002 and November 2004. 3) RespondenV accused Heera Lal @ Ameen abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 376, 493 and 506-B ofthe tndian Penal Code. 4) At the trial, the above charges against the respondent /accused were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW/1 Kumari Sukantr, PW/2 Ramsnehi, PW/3 Mohan Patel and PW/4 Dr.A Chandra Rao. The accused also examined one witness Sonsai in his defense. 5) The trial Court on a closescrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the prosecutrix was aged about 19 years in the year 2002; the prosecutrix did not disclose to anyone about the commission of forcible sexual intercourse by the accused; the First Information Report came to be lodged after about two years on 06.11.2004. On the above findings, the trial Court acquitted respondent / accused Heera Lal @ Ameen vide impugned judgment dated 27.07.2005. 6) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioner / State vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix on flimsy and untenable grounds. 7) The prosecutrix was aged about 18 years in the year 2002 when the alleged first fordble act of sexual intercourse is said to have been committed with her by respondent /accused Heera Lal @ Ameen. The prosecutrix alleges that the accused thereafter continued to commit sexual intercourse with her for a period of about two years. The prosecutrix did not disclose about the commission of forcible sexual intercourse with her by the accused to anyone in the family for sufficiently long period. The First Information Report against the respondent/ accused came to be lodged on 06.11.2004, after about two years of the commission of the first alleged forcible act ofsexual intercourse by the accused. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panet Lawyer; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Heera Lal @ Ameen; 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 / accused Heera Lal @ Ameen, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 9) Mere possjbility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 10) We, therefore, do not find any good ground for grant 6f leave to appeal against the acquittai of respondent/ accused Heera Lal @ Ameen. 11) The petjtion filed by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice padma Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge