,,-ir^ •'sy / i!'..^%/@? '^^^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ApDlicant Appellant Non-apDlicant Respondent Cr. M.P.No. 272 of 2008. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg VERSUS Bhalu @ Narendra Dewar, Aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Munna Dewar @ Premlal Dewar, R/o Village Bhagoli Para, Rajhara, P.S. Rajhara, District Durg (C.G). ip -ii ^ 1 Application u/S 378 (31 for grant of leave to aoiwal and memorandum of appeal u/s 378 (11 of Code of Crimlnal Procedure 1973 Present: Shri Sudhir Bajpai, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/petitioner. ORDER (30th March,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing I.A.No.01/2008, the documents fited along with this application are taken on record. 2) Shri Sudhir Bajpai, learned Deputy Government Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Bhalu @ Narendra Dewar. 3) _ Police Rajhara, District Durg, after completion of the investigation ofthe case registered on the report ofthe prosecutrix •:ii;.!...., *^^^;^1 charge-sheeted respondenV accused Bhalu @ Narendra Dewar, 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 prosecutnx without her consent and against herwill In the night of 12.05.2007. 4} The respondenV accused abjured his gullt and pleaded fatee implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 376 and 506 ofthe Indian Penal Gode. 5) At the trial, the above charges against the respondent/ accused were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW-1 Manoharial, PW-2 Dhirpal, PW-3 Salik Ram Netam, PW-4 Ramavatar, PW-5 Ku. Varsha, PW-6 Ratantal, PW-7 Avadesh Kumar Mishra, PW-8 Dr. Rashmi Nathan, PW-9 Dhanendra, RA/-10 Narendra Singh, PW-11 Surendra Singh Rajput, PW-12 Kiran, PW-13 Bhuri Bai and PW-14 Naresh @ Masiha. 6) Of the above-mentioned 14 prosecution witne^es, R/V-1 Manoharlal, PW-2 Dhirpal, FW-3 Salik Ram Netam and PW-4 Ramavatar did not support the prosecution case andwere declared hostile. 7) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix suffered from serious inflrm'rtles. The trial Court Turther found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the entire episode. The trial Court on the above findings, acquitted respondent / accused Bhalu @ Narendra Dewar, vide v_.— d '.'"^.'~"i'i^'^ impugned judgment dated 17.09.20)7, passed in Sessions Trial No.9/2007. 8) Shri Sudhir Bajpai, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses CHI flimsy and untenable grounds and in holding thai theprosecutrix was a consenting party to the alleged act of sexual intercourse. 9) The prosecutrix in the present case, admittedly, was aged about 17 years. The prosecutrix and her parents were residing in the house of the accused for the last about three months. Though, the atleged incident of sexual intercourse is said to have taken place in the night of 12.05.2007, the First Information Report came to be lodged after two days, on 14.05.20)7. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination on 15.05.2007. In the opinion of the Doctor, the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of tearned Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondent / accused; 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 flndings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Bhalu @ Narendra Dewar, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 11) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence witl not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal agains^acquittal. 1 ^ .••'(:' 12) The petition Tiled by the petitioner / State under Sectlon 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice y'v ./' Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu if'-iSi. K;s'l;"s^wa3!.