IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.31 of 2010 JAHADI KHATOON Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3 28.06.2010 This application is for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal as passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Katihar, vide his judgment dated 8th March 2010 under Sessions Trial no. 451 of 2006 whereby the opposite party no.2 Md. Shahnawaj has been acquitted of the charge u/s 376 IPC. The case of the petitioner-complainant Jahadi Khatoon was that on 12th February 2003, while she was alone in her house, opposite party no.2 Md. Shahnawaj came there and he forcibly committed rape on her and that on resentment expressed by the complainant, the accused assured to marry her. It was also the case of the petitioner- complainant that thereafter, whenever the O.P.No.2 found her alone, he used to come to her house and indulge in sexual enjoyment with her. She further alleged that due to repeated sexual intercourse, she became pregnant but did not disclose this fact to her parents due to fear. It was further the case of the petitioner-complainant that the opposite party no.2 Md. Shahnawaj continued sexual intercourse with her and assured to marry her but subsequently, he refused to marry her. The complainant also alleged that on 24th May 2003 at 8:00 A.M., the O.P.No.2 Shahnawaj and his mother took her (petitioner) to the clinic of Dr. Arun Kumar and miscarriage was caused to her and thereafter she was brought back to her house. She further alleged that due to miscarriage bleeding was caused which was noticed by her parents and then she 2 disclosed the matter to them and that thereafter a Panchayati was convened. She also alleged that in the Panchayati, the opposite party no.2 Md. Shahnawaj promised to marry but ultimately he refused to marry her. In this case the complaint was filed in court which was sent for institution of an FIR. It is submitted at the Bar that the Police instituted the FIR and commenced investigation, but submitted final form reporting the case as false, but on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complainant-petitioner, cognizance was taken and the opposite party no.2 Md. Shahnawaj was put on trial. Learned trial court had considered the evidence of witnesses and it has come to find that there was various infirmity and inconsistency in this case. Firstly it was noticed that the complainant says that the opposite party no.2 Md. Shahnawaj promised in the Panchayati to marry her but the P.W.1 stated that nothing as such was decided in the Panchayati. The learned trial court also considered the matter that according to complainant’s case as well as her evidence she had engaged in the sexual intercourse with the opposite party no.2 Md. Shahnawaj for several months at her will and she had not disclosed these facts to her parents. The learned trial court also considered that the complainant was examined by Dr. Laxmi Singh who was examined as P.W.7. It was considered by the trial court that the complainant says that while she was taken to the clinic of Dr. Arun Kumar, she was administered a tablet which caused bleeding and, thus, causing miscarriage was alleged but P.W.7 who examined the complainant 3 categorically stated in evidence that she did not fine any sign of recent pregnancy or miscarriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant submitted that the medical examination was done at an interval of about 4 months, hence, such sign was not found. No doubt, there is delay in the medical examination but not finding any sign of recent pregnancy or the miscarriage is important. Learned counsel for the o.P.No.2 submitted that after thorough investigation, the Police had found the case false, hence, final form was submitted, but it was only on the basis of the sole statement of the complainant, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the opposite party no.2 Md. Shahnawaj was put on trial. It was further submitted that on a composite and analytical examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court has correctly taken a view that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Thus hearing and considering the facts and circumstances as also found and discussed by the learned trial court, I do not find any perversity in the trial court’s judgment. In such view of the matters, I do not find it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this application is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad, J )