/y^""4 llta.-" ''iykyin«»»'' ••..s.^ .-'.;•.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH i^3s'M;s;t. t^ s. l!'i"::->'S, ":-^:;-3^>^ CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Applicant Cr.M.P.No. 325 of 2008 State of Chhatti^arh, Through : District Magistrate, Surguja (Ambikapur), Distt Surguja (CG) VERSUS Vijay Kumar Khes, S/o Suraj Uraon, Aged about - 21 years, Resident of Village - Maharanipur, (Dekarpara) PS Sitapur, Distt Surguja (CG) ApDlication for arant of teave to appeal U/S 378 (31 and memo of appeal u/s 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Non-apDlicant Present: Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate, for the State/petitioner. ORDER (30th June, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing IA No.1/2008, the documents filed along wfth this application are taken on record. 2. Shri Akhil Mishra, leamed Deputy Government Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Vijay Kumar Khes. 3. Police Sitapur, Distrtet Surguja, after completion of the investigation of the case registerKt on the report of the prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondent/ accused Vijay Kumar Khes for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of ^'?.*^s:^^'- •^'.~ ^ ;?•??- [ijB;sly^!ii fSS Svi!WW the Indian Penal Code, on the accusation of his having comm'rtted sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will fora period of about 10 months. 4. Respondent/ accused Vijay Kumar Khes abjured his guift and pleaded false implication to the charQe framed by the trial Court under Section 376 ofthe tndian Penal Code. 5. At the trial, the above charge against the respondenV accused was sought to be proved on the evidence of PW1 Brij Kumari, PW2 Smt Puja Agrawal, PW3 Budhiya, PW4 Dhaniram Khalco, PW5 Dr KKDatta, PW6 BBS Rajput and PW7 Dr MKJain. 6. The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trial found that the prosecution could not estabtish that the prosecutrix was aged less than 16 years on the date of the incldent; the prosecutrix did not disclose to anyone about the alleged commission of forcibte sexual intercourse by the accused; there was inordinate delay of about 10 months in lodging the First Information Report. On the above findings, fhe trial Court found it quite unsafe to act upon the evidence of the prosecutlon witnesses. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted the respondent/ accused vide impugned judgment dated 22.12.2007 passed in SesslonsTrial No.220/2006. 7. Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in hoMing that the prosecutn'x was aged more than 16 years on the date of the incident and that she was a consenting party to the entire episode. B B ^a ta "iS.®. 8 '•.? '^ -;--^y ^^) ^^ iys- V 8. According to the ossification test, the prosecutrix was found to be aged between 14 and 16 years on the date of her examination by the doctor. Even according to the prosecutrix, the firet alleged forcible sexual intercourse with her was committed by the accused sometime in the month of June, 2005, Surprisingty, the prosecutrix even did not disclose about the said forcible sexual intercourse by the accused to anyone and not even to her mother. 9. On due consideration of the submissions of leamed Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Vijay Kumar Khes; 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 findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Vijay Kumar Khes, 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 good ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Vij'ay Kumar Khes. 12. The petition filed by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) ofCr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SumlKumarSinha Judge subbu