IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.76 of 2007 INDRASAN KUMARI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHUPENDRA MAHTO For the petitioner : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Hanslal Kumar, Advocate. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar No. 3, Advocate. ----------- 6 17.03.2009 There is a delay in filing the present application. The delay is of about 14 days. Both the parties have made submissions on the merit of the case.. Heard. The complainant-petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 7th September, 2007 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 352 of 2006242/2006 arising out of Complaint case no. C-1/802/2005 whereby the accused (O.P. no. 2 herein) has been acquitted of the charges framed under sections 323, 451 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 7.7.2005 at 11.30 p.m., the accused alongwith another miscreant entered into the room of the victim (P.W. 5) and committed rape on her under the threat of a knife held by one of the accuseds. In order to support the prosecution case, the prosecution appears to have examined as many as 7 witnesses. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are hear say witnesses. The Trial Court has recorded adequate reasons for not placing reliance on their 2 testimonies. P.W. 5 is the victim. Her evidence in detail has been placed, referred to and relied upon by both the parties. This Court perused the entire evidence of the victim (P.W. 5). The Trial Court on appraisal of the evidence so brought on record has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt as her deposition carries material contradictions rendering her unfit for reliance. This Court, after hearing both the parties, is of the view that no patent illegality has been committed by the Trial Court in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses for which adequate/cogent reasons have been assigned. The Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, has taken a view which cannot be said to be perverse in law. The application seeking leave, in my view, does not merit interference. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Since the matter has been heard on merit, the question of limitation delves into insignificance. The application seeking condonation of delay also stands disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )