IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU . DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Cr. M. P. No. 185 of 2008. The State of Chhattisgath, Through the ‘- District Magistrate, Janjgir Champa(CG) Appellant VERSUS Rajesh Kumar Nirmalkar, S/o Shatruhan, Aged about 23 years, R/o Village Jhalmala, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Respondent Agglication uIS 378 (3) for grant of Ieave to apgeal and memorandum of agpeal uis 378 11) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Present: Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/petitioner. -...— ORDER (06m Aprir, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing I.A.No.01/2008, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record. 2) Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Government Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Rajesh Kumar Nirmalkar. 3) Police Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of the d/ H R @ prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondent! accused Rajesh Kumar Nirmalkar, for the alléged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the indian Penal Code, on the accusation of his having committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her Consent and against her will during the period of about six months. 4) The respondent/ accused abjured his guiit and pleaded false implication to the charge framed by the trial Court under Section 376 of the lndian Penal Code. 5) At the trial, the above charge against the respondent/ accused was sought to be proved on the evidence of PW-1 Laxmin Bai, PW-2 .Shivkumar, PW-3 Dujbai, PW-4 Chaitram, PW-5 Ranjubai, PW—6 Brindabai, PW-7 Chhatlal *Mahobia, PW-8 Hanuman Prasad Dubey, PW-9 Dr. K.K. Dahire, PW-10 Dr. Smt. Anita Shrivastava, PW-11 Satya Baijnath and PW-12 R.L. Bada. 6) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution in general and that of the prosecutrix in particular held that the prosecution could not establish the charge punishable under Section 376 of the lndian Penal Code against the respondent/ accused as the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the entire episode. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted respondent! accused Rajesh Kumar Nirmalkar, vide impugned judgment dated 24.12.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No.1 48/2006. 7) Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate, vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 8) Admittedly, the prosecutrix was aged more than 18 years on the date of the incident. Though, the first aiieged act of forcible sexual intercourse by the accused is said to have taken place sometime in AuguSt,2005, the First information Report came to be g ‘ lodged after about six months on, 11.02.2006. The prosecutrix on medical examination was found to be habitual to sexual intercourse though she was an unmarried girl. It has come in the evidence that (v the prosecuttix did not disclose about the commission oi forcible sexuai intercourse by the accused even to her parents sufficiently for a long period. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court .9, leading to acquittal of the respondent I accused; 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 satisded that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal. of respondent l accused Rajesh Kumar Nirmalkar, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 10) 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. 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. r// /\// 13) The petition filed by the petitioner / State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Rajesh Kumar Nlrmalkar, therefore, fails and is.hereby dismissed. h~ W *"# ~ g# Sd/_ SUNILKUMAR SINHA Sdl‘ * Judge CHLEF JUsTICE \ ‘ l l ‘