^ D' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA.CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Aoplicant Non-applicant Cr. M.P.No. 431 of 2008 State of Chhattisgarh, DistricA Magistrate, Kanker, Distt North Bastar Kanker(CG) VERSUS Suresh Tiwari, S/o Rajaram Thwari, Aged about - 27 yeare, Orcupation Business R/o Singarbhanth, Kanker, Presently residing at - Godhiyari, Raipur (CG) 1 I- ApDlication for arant of leave to appeal u/S 378(31 and memorandumofaDDeaI u/s 378 (11 ofCode ofCriminal Procetlure1973 Present: Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/petitioner. QRDER >th (08mApril,2810) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. Shri Praveen Das, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State / petitioner Is heard on IA No.1/2(X)8, an application for condonation of the delay in flling the pdjtion under Sectjon 378 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C. 2) OndueconsiderationofttesubmissionsofleamedDeputy Govemment AdvoGateand the grounds taken rn the appltGation, we are satisfied that the petitioner / State has succeedal in "s^a^ showing sufffcient cause ft>r thedelay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C.. 3) IA No.1/2008,therefore,isallowed and the delay of26 days in flling the petition under Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned. 4) Learned Deputy Govemment Advocate te heard on the questionof grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Suresh Tiwari. 5) Police t^nker, after completlon of the Investigation of the case reglstered on the reportof one Sarojini Mandavi, mother of the prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondent/ aecus«i Suresh Tiwari, for the alteged commission of offences punishable under Sections363, 366 and 376 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Sectlon 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduted Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the accusatton of his having kidnapped / abducted the prosecutrix and of commission of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against herwill for a period of about two months between 28.09.2007 and 28.11.2007. 6) The respondent/ accused abjured his guilt emd pteaded false implicatlon to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Rreventton of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 7) At the trial, the above charges against the respondent/ accused were squghtto Be preved on the evidence of PW-1 Ku. ^ Alte Mandavi, PW-2 Smt Sarojlni Mandavi, PW-3 Jageshwari Kashyap, PW-4 Dr AK Verma, PW-5 Dr Hemlata Sahu, PW-6 Srikant Dwivedi, PW-7 BR Thakur, PW-8 NL Dhnrtlahare, PW-9 Atexander Kiro and PW-10 Dr MK Markam. 8) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the enttre evidence led by the prosecution at the trial acqultted respondent /accused Suresh Tiwari vide impugned judgment dated 08.(%.2008 as the prosKiutrix dld not su^port the prosecution case at all and the other evidence led by the prosecution fell short of ^tablishing the abovecharges againstthe responctent/accused. 9) Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate vehemently argued that even though the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case, theother evldence led by the prosecution inctuding that of mother ofthe prosecutrix is sufficient to establish the above charges against the r^pondent / accused. 10) The proseeutrix in para 2 of her depoation before the trial Court categorically stated that her date of birth was 18.05.1989 and as such the prosecutrix was found to be 18 years of age by the trial Court on the date of the incident. Though the prosecution alleges that the respondent /accused kidnappect/abducted the prosecutrix on 28.TO.2007, the First Information Report came to be lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix after about two months on 28.11.2007. The prosecutrix in her evidence before the Court did not support the prosecution case at alt. She on the contrary stated that she has married the accused and was tiving with him as his wife. I -aiiS" subbu 11) On due consfderation of the submi^ions of leamed Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trtal Court leading to acquittal of respondent / acciKed Suresh Tiwari; the evidence led bythe prosecutlon at th&trial in general and that of the prosecutrix in partieular; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to ^cquittal of respondent / accused Suresh Tiwari, do not sufferfrom any infirmity whatsoever. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in the impugned judgment ofacquittat. 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 Suresh Tiwari, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice N. SdA Sunil Kumar SinUa Judge ^BiiBK