IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1053 of 2011 Jaisa Khatoon Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 19.9.2011 The delay in filing the application seeking Special Leave to appeal against the acquittal of the three respondents for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is condoned by allowing I.A. No. 1994 of 2011. After having heard learned counsel for the applicant, what this Court finds is that the applicant, who happens to be the prosecutrix and the informant of the case was bringing on the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against respondents 2 to 4 by alleging that while she was cutting grass just in the vicinity of her house along with another lady, the three accused over powered her, ravished her so much so that she lost her senses and as such was brought home by her accompanying lady. That lady does not support the occurrence as an eye witness, rather, stated that she was told by the prosecutrix about the incident. Admitted fact was that the husband of the prosecutrix had filed a criminal case against one of the respondents, namely, Aash Md. Mansoor bearing Kanahauli P.S.Case No.23 of 2005 and that case was pending on the date of occurrence before a Magistrate. Further admitted fact was that there was a pathway by the side of the houses of the parties and the parties were at logger heads on account of not 2 allowing the accused persons to pass through that pathway. Each fact was admitted. The learned trial Judge has analyzed the evidence of the witnesses and had gone on to say that it could not be a case of rape. I find from perusal of the evidence which has been discussed in the impugned judgment that in the very story of the prosecution there are inherent improbabilities and patent absurdities. The three accused persons who were at logger heads and one of whom was facing criminal prosecution initiated at the behest of the husband of the prosecutrix, would not have joined together to go at the place which was by the side of or in the vicinity of the house of the prosecutrix to commit the act. Besides, if at all the incident had happened, it could not have happened in the close proximity of the house of the prosecutrix and the story of committing rape by the accused persons or any of them does not appear believable. Shri S.N.Prasad, learned A.P.P. submitted that there is consistency in evidence of the witnesses for identifying the material as regards the offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code. This Court is of the view that mere consistencies or incongruity never prove the charge because truthfulness of the evidence, probably, has to be identified and read so as to judging a judgment. The view which was taken by the learned trial Judge was not a view which could be said 3 to be perverse and the view taken by him was also a possible view on the facts of the case. Considering the above facts, I find no reason to grant Special Leave to appeal and the petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)