^ Y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. Criminal Revision No. 183/2004 Petitioner Vs. Respondents Ku. Santoshi Dhimar, D/o. Mahettar Dhlmar, aged about 15 years, R/o. Village Bhainsha, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate, Raipur (CG) Nand Kumar Sahu, S/o. Jagdish Sahu, aged about 21 years, R/o. Village Bhainsha, Police Station Kharora, Distnct Rajpur (CG) (Memo or revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.) Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsei for the applicant. Shri UNS Deo. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.l/State. Shri Govind Dewangan, counsel for respondent No.2. 1. 2. ORAL JUDGMENT (05.07.2011) The following judgment of the Court was pa^sed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, Jl. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittai dated 10.02.2004 passed in Session Tria! No.323/2003 by Sessjons Judge, Raipur, the prosecutrix has filed this criminal revision. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- On 05.7.2003, the prosecutrix lodged a report that four months prior to the said date, when she was returning home, she was caught by the accused/respondent No.2 on the way and was dragged to the byara of one Devcharan Sahu and subjected to forcible intercourse by the accused. Admittedly, the above incident was not disclosed by the ^ -g-) prosecutrix for about four months, however, when she carried pregnancy of about four months, the matter was disclosed to her family member and ultimately report was lodged on 05.7.2003. 3. The learned Session Judge recorded the finding that the prosecutrix was a major girl and there was no evidence to hold that she was subjected to forcible intercourse by the accused/respondent No.2, therefore, the accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 376 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 4. Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned session Judge erred in law in recording the finding about the age of the prosecutrix. He also took us to various paragraphs of the judgment as a!so the evidence of the prosecutrix. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/accused opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the sessions Court. 6. Shri UNS Deo, learned Govt. Advocate supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. 8. Ganeshiya Bai (PW-3) is mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed about the incident, but she did not depose about the age of her daughter. The learned Sessions Judge, in para 12 of the judgment observed that though the prosecutrix was sent for ossification test and was found to be aged about 18 years, the said report was not proved by the prosecution. Apart from the above there is no other evidence to prove the age of the prosecutrix. It is in these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge held that there was no evidence to show that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the date of incident. 9. Admittedly, the incident took place four months prior to the lodging of First Information Report, which was lodged by the prosecutrix on 5.7.2003. In fact, when the prosecutrix carried pregnancy of four months, the matter was disclosed to her family members, thereafter report was lodged. In the above facts and circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge he!d that looking to the evidence of age and conduct of the prosecutrix, an offence under Section 376 IPC wou'd not be made out against the accused and therefore the accused was acquitted from the charges framed against him. 10. On due consideration of the entire facts and material available on record, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Judge. The revision has no merits. The same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Bini Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma ^ Judge