^ ^N G HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: Applicant Appellant Non-apDlicant Respondent HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUiVIAR SINHA, J. Cr.M.P.No.S30of2007. State of Chhattjsgarh, Through: the District Magistrate, District Janjgir Champa (CG) VERSUS Sarjuram, S/o Dukalu Ram Kewat, Aged about 28 years, R/o Khutighat, P.S. Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa ApDlication for arant of leave to appeal U/S 378(3) and memorandum of appeal u/s 378 (11 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Present: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/petitioner. ORDER (13tnApril,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. By allowing I.A.No.02, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record. 2) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, leamedAdditional Advocate General, is heard on IA No.01 , an application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C. 3) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioner / State has A^ -E succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in flling the petition under Section 378 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C.. 4) IA No.01, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned. 5) Learned Additional Advocate General is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Sarjuram. 6) Police Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of the prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondent/ accused Sarjuram, for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation of his having committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will In the night of 17.05.2005. 7) The respondent/ accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charge framed by the trial Court under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 8) At the trial, the above charge against the respondent/ accused was sought to be proved on the evidence of PW-1 Sanjay Ujeer, PW-2 Dr. D.C. Choudhary, PW-3 Jwalaram, PW-4 Dr.(Smt.)Rama Ghosh, PW-5 Chandrarekha, PW-6 Kumari, RA/-7 Tulsiram, PW-8 Shivprasad Banjare and PW-9 G.P. Shriwas. 9) RespondenV accused Sarjuram also examined DW-1 Chaturman Yadav in support of his defense. 10) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of the prosecutrix in partteular found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffered from serious jnflrmities. The trial Court found that the conduct of the prosecutrix during the course of the alleged incident and thereafter was highly unnatural. The trial Court on the above findings acquitted respondent/ accused Sarjuram vide impugned judgment dated 02.03.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No.115/2006. 11) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix on flimsy and untenable grounds. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix which was amply corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses was more than sufficient to establish the charge punishabfe under Section 376 ofthe Indian Penal Code against the respondent / accused. 12) The prosecutrix in the present case was aged about 40 years on the date of the incident. The alleged incident is said to have taken place at about 9.00 pm on 17.05.2005. Though the prosecutrix admittedly met her husband in the same night and also slept w'rth him, but she did not disclose about the incident to her husband and disclosure for the first time was made next morning. The First Information Report about the incident came to be lodged at 11 .00 am on 18.05.2005 i.e. after about 12 hours of /"' •:'• - ..^c^^. ^: 1.1 ^y^ 'i K, ^.// ^... "^c^ "'^.'^^^ the incident. Though, the prosecutrix has stated that she disclosed about part ofthe incident to her friend Kumari Bai in the night of the incident itself, the said Kumar Bai who was examined as PW-6 before the trial Court did not support the prosecution case and the prosecutrix at all. 13) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Sarjuram; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of the prosecutrix in particular; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfled that the findings recorded by th^ trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Sarjuram, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 14) Mere possibility of another view onthe prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 15) For the foregoing reasons, 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 Sarjuram, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed; Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunaKumarSinha Judge subbu