IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.87 of 2010 SHAIRA KHATOON Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 7. 01.03.2011. Heard. The period of limitation intervening the filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. As regards the merits of the present appeal, the case of the prosecution, as contained in the complaint petition of the complainant appellant, was that the respondent came calling her husband and finding the appellant all alone, violated her sexually. The learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence of the witnesses in three paragraphs, i.e., paragraphs-19, 20 and 21 of the judgment. The basic feature of the evidence which has been culled out of the evidence of the witnesses is that there was variance in the places of occurrence as per the complainant and the witnesses where she claims being violated sexually. Besides, the age of the respondent was 60 years and when he was criminally assaulting the complainant, her own sons aged about 17 and 19 years were very much present there. Thus, not only the 2 trial Judge was rejecting the plea that the complainant was all alone, but he was also pointing out the absurdity of the allegations when he was noting the presence of her two sons. It appears that there was criminal case pending between the husband of the complainant and the respondent. This appears admitted by some of the witnesses, as may appear from paragraph-19 of the judgment. Besides, the learned trial Judge was accepting the plea of the respondent that he was not present or he could never have been present at the time of occurrence as he was reporting certain matter before certain officer-in-charge of the police and it was entered in station diary bearing no.796 dated 16.4.2007 of the Gandhi Maidan police station. The above were the reasons upon which the veracity of the prosecution case was doubted and the case of the complainant was rejected after extending benefit of doubt to the respondent. If two views are possible and if the view which was taken by the learned trial Judge also could be one of the possible 3 views, then the judgment of acquittal could not be reversed as the same could not be said to be suffering from perversity. Considering the above principle and finding that the view taken by the trial Judge was also a possible view, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. B.Kr. (Dharnidhar Jha,J.)