c^^ ^rl^ C3F AT CJ. & .,J. Ku Laiita Joshi., D/o Shri Sunder La!,- about .18 years, R/o Viiiage Laxhanpur, Poilce Statlon Pithora, DIstt Mahasamund (CG) 2. Khiiawan Joshl, S/o Shri Gendram J'oshi, about 24 years, R/o Vlllage LaRhanpur, Pollce Ststion Plthora, Distt Mahasamund (CG) State of Chhattlsgarh Through Offlcer-in-Charge, PS Pithora, Dlstt Durg (CG) of 378141 of Cr.P.C. Present: Shri Y.C. Sharma and Shri Vivek Rathore, counsel for the petitioner. 9m 19Sm [^' The tbltovving order of the Court • was by C,,J. Shri Y.C. Sharma and Shri Vivek Rathore, ieamed counsei tor the petitioner are heard ' on the questjon ot' grant ot' specjai leave to agalnst the acquittai of respondent/ accused Khllawan Joshl. .,.^ ; ' •••3 ^" ^ ..- 3fe,, ''€. ^ ^ ^ :'-^-^^ mys 2) Poiice Pithora, District Mahasamund after completlon of the Investlgatlon of the case registered on the report of the prosecutrix, charge-sheeted respondent/ accused Khilawan. Joshi for the alleged commission of' off'ence punishabie under Section 37'6 of the Indlan F'sena! Code on the accusatlon of his having comrpitted sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against ner wil! sometime in April, 2008. 3)" At tne trla!, respondent/ accused Khiiawan Joshi abjured hls guilt and pieaded false impllcstjon to the charge framed by the trial Court under Section 376 ofthe i.P.C. 4) The above cnarge against'the accused was sought to be proved on the evidence of PW1 ku. Laiita, PVV2 Shyamla! Sunderiai, PVV3 .Jeevanial Sa'nu, PVV4 La! Bahadur Slngh, PW5 Bodhan Singh Dhruv, PW6 Dr. Vishai Singhai, PW7 Anand Rao, PVV8 Dr. Smt. Shankunt.ala Bareha and PVV9 Tikeshvvar Hota. 5) The triai Court on a close scrutlny of the entjre evidence led by the prosecut'.on found that ttie prosecution couSd not establlsh that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the aate of tne incident. The trial Court further found that the prosecutnx WB.S a consenting party to the entire episode. 6) Shri Y.C. Sharma and Shri Vivek Rathore, Searned counse! for the petitjoner/ complainant vehementiy argued that the trial Court has erred In not, givlng due weight to the evldence of the jsrosecutrjx and in acquitting respondent/ accused Khiiawan JOSlll. ..^' ^f:::.-^. 7) The alieged incident of forcible sexuai intercourse by the respondent/ accused on the prosecutrix is said to have ta.ken place sometime in Apri!, 2008 and the First information Report came to be lodged after about one year on 26-06-2009. 8) On due consjderation of the submissjons of iearned counsei for the petitjoner; the findings recorded by the triai Court leading to acqulttaJ of respondent/ accused Khijawan Joshi; and the delay of more than one year In reporting the mstter to the polJce, vve are satlsfled that the findlngs recorded by the triai Court leading to acqulttai of respondent/ accused Khilawan Joshi, do not suffer from any int'irmity whatsoever. 9) Mere possjbjllty ot' another vievv on the prosecution evidence wil! not by jtseif be a suffjcjent ground to warrant interference in an appea) against acqujttal. 10) We, thereforei do not find any ground f'or grant of' speclai to appeal against the acquittai of respondent/ accused Khilawsn Joshi. 11) The petjtjon fi!ed under Section 378 (4) read with 372 of Cr.P.C. for grant of special ieave to appeal against the acqulttal of' respondent/ accused Khilawan Joshi, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed on merits, notwithstanding that it is barred bv tlme. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu