^ ^^ ^v/1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: c>- HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Petitjoner Non-applicant Respondent M.Cr.C.(Pm No. 54 of 2008 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station : Narayanpur, Distt. Bastar, VERSUS Rakesh Nath, S/o Pravin Chandra Nath aged about 18 years, R/o Narayanpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Ajpfitication for arant of leave to appeal U/S 378 (3) and memo of apDealji/s^378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Present: Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate, forthe State/petitioner. ORDER (08tnJuly,2010) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Rakesh Nath. 2) Police Narayanpur, District Bastar, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of the prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondenV accused Rakesh Nath for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes ^V^j \,.>y "^^^; s and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the accusation of his having committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will on 24-11-2003. 3) Respondent/ accused Rakesh Nath abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Section 376 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4) At the trial, the above charges against the respondent/ accused were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW1 Reshma, PW2 Kamla, PW3 Balchand Tandia, R/V4 K.L. Dhruv, PW6 Teekam Singh, PW7 America Tandia, PW8 Dr. Govind Singh and PW9 Dr. Sarita Mohabia. 5) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trial found that the prosecution evidence suffered from serious infirmities. The trial Court, therefore, found it quite unsafe to act upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as such, acquitted respondenV accused Rakesh Nath vide impugned judgment dated 28-09-2004. 6) Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in not giving due weight to the evidence of the prosecutrix and recording acquittai of respondenV accused Rakesh Nath vide impugned judgment dated 28-09-2004. rN> '^ 7) The prosecution did not produce any birth certiflcate or school certificate to establish the date of birth of the prosecutrix. According to PW2 Kamla and PW3 Balchand Tandia, the aunt and uncle of the prosecutrix, she was aged about 16 years on the date of the incident. PW8 Dr. Govind Singh, who conducted ossification test of the prosecutrix opined that the age of the prosecutrix was between 13 and 16 years. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was margin of three years on either side. Even according to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix accompanied the accused on his motorcycle voluntarily. On her medical examination, no marks of struggle or external injury was found by the Doctor. The matter was reported to the policeafter three days ofthe incident on 27-11-2003. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Rakesh Nath; 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 trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent/ accused Rakesh Nath, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 9) Mere possibitity of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. ~-3y subbu €P 10) We, therefore, do not find any good ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Rakesh Nath. 11) The petition filed by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge