-fB- .^1;' ^ ^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBlLASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HtM'BLE St-IRI Ril.lg^ GUPTA, C..J. & HOhFgl^SHR^M^A^Ct^DRAK^ ftppellant AppiiCant ResDondents M.Cr.C.(PRtNo.4B90of20()5 : State of ehhattisgarh through the Statisntiouse Officer, P.S.Ambildpyr .! (saefar)'..: ..,.:.: ::'r,; • ::':;"; VERSUS ::.,.: -.....:. '..:.: ..: • 1. .ShyarTtlaUaiawal.S/olateShn Mahacie&Jaiswat,agedabout48 years,oeeupationMotelBMsiness, R/oChopdapara.Ambikapur. 2. Pankaj Choudhary. S/o Sakaldeep Gh(^t}iiaj3(^edabQut3Syeare, ^i;^.^.;Q|eUp^of)j©(:>f!jtracto(',;^Rft).;' '-$?N'''%UI^IIWI^I^PMr-':::;'':l'^':'.''^^^^ ^-3.'i®SBj^lHaji/('a^:Si'o>late/ShFi-,,.. ,:::':, MaHaiEleQ|JaiaAGat,;sig^labout33 yeaFSi^lGupatnSnEycitel^Byslhess, R/oChopldapara.Ambilopur. 4, RraKashSahu, S/QRamnatbSahu, ^edaboytS'l yeare.oecupatiori Contractor, R/o Darriparai .Ambikapur...'. .:,,•.,•. :.:,::,.!. . ^:. : ,, 5. KapilJaiaMa!,sA3RafnlalJaiswal, ^ectabout28years,6ccupation Hotel^BBsiness, DabripaFa, 7argawan,P.S. Patna.cBstt. Korea (PQliG&StationofSI. 1 to4is l%)tWei|i,^tnbiKapurdistt.Surguja ADDlieationfbraranftoraeawiKtoaDBealsl.MS 378^(3) and memobfaDB^I^/s?^8S('ffiffiC^^»f£@nniiniElliRrocedui» Present: Shn ^kliil^Agrav^gleaFnect^Panel Lav^ ^Sta1^etiti6ner.^^!?iy:g''.•'•,1..^ —— llEate>. .:K V'l ^ ••w^.i^i ::.'^i...:";'TY>^"W ^s^s S^S^^^^®i %^S^j§^? Shri P.R. Patankar, tearned couns^^ .^.No.1..':':::'.^: ••^..•;;'''^ :;ORDER:.;.:.:::::'',...'....:::..'^ :;;J.^'^2myu|y?tM<Ol.,::/i:'.:;''':";::-Y^'^^ Tlie ^lowthg Qreter o^^ ^Rajeev^Gupta,'e^.?^:';^..';::' ..;'^.':^ •-.f- .'• •• •-.'•'. ".'•'•• •'. •• ' •' • .'..••••- l^rned c<3tms^^^^^ of grant of teave to ^|real against the acqu^^^^ respopdent^ aeeused perscffis vide impugnedjudgment 17^8-20C6.,::;::":I;''':'":^.^ -.:••.•.• 2) Police^mbikapur.aftercompletion^theinvestig^ the case i^jstei^?cin^li<e^gc^^ |i|^|gg|g|^S|^^i|||Hf^gS^^^'^3iei^re^^W'.::; ie.,,^lege^ ®o^js§ijE||(}fail!el©f^i|i|^|gQBi§KaSleunderSe^ 294,506and323ofttielnetilanil^nar^ode,ontheaccusati^ respondent/accused^Shyamlaiyaisvralhavirigcommitteds^ intercoi^e^v^the^roseciutfix^vwthoutheTcon^ent^ her vvillfbr a period c^ 1%y^ ac^sed pereons tiawng abused, assaulted^ :during4h&above.period^f:.,l:.L''':::':'''.^ 3) The responclent^^c^u^d^rsbnsabjuf^theirgui^ pleaded^lse1mplreatiein ^eaboveiGtWi^^ Court..-'.; '.L''.;-;-'''''v'1'^ 4} The 1:rial Coyrt^pn ^clpsi&^rtrtiny oftB^ ^ by t^ pr^ecutiorfiat|^tiie5TOaiin^gi|riSra^^^ proseeutrix in partieHlai^^uliil^hal; ffie prosecu^ ••m./. » .-»,,.< K^ sufferedfromseriousjnftrmitie?,ThetnalGourt,therefbre,fbund itquiteunsafetoactupohtheprc^eeutionevictenceandassuch, aGquitted respondents/ iaccused^ persons Shyamlal^^^^ ^ Pankaj Choudhary, ^hivlal yaiswal, Rrakash Sahu and Kapil Jaiswalyideirnpugnedjudgmentdated 17^-2006. -^ 5} Shn AKhil Agrav^ leamed Ranel Lawyer^^^^^^^^ ^rgued^that thetrjalJCoyrt has erred m notgiving due^^w^ the eYiderK^QftlteppQseeutnxandjnacqyittingtherespond^ accuseclpersonsofallth^Gharges. 6) T'he prosecutnxadnijttedtywasagedabout25years^^w^ theFir^lnTprmErti^nRepCtrtv^loclgedbyherintMey^ ^ough^ttie|ni^|^lli^|e!|a<^^)gR^^ tohayeeommitte^byr^ondenKacc^edShyamlatJ^ the prosecutrix sometime in the year 1992,- no cdrnptaint was made by Ner ^ a period^^ Informatipn Reportwaslodged inttieyear2Q04. It^ the proseGUtrix dRlivered^a child, wMo lateron died. 7) Qndue considerationi ofthe submjssions ofleampd Panel L^wyer; IHe flndings rec^rded by the trial Goyrt ^leadirig^^^^^^t^ acquittal ofthe responclents? ac^se^ pe^ mentroned l^ad fe^ures oftheca^^^ findings recorded by the ^tnal ©^ responyerts/ aceused persons S^ ChQudhary^ ShjvlcU.JaisVval^BraKashSahuandKapilJaisv^ nQtsufTe^fromlany^nfirmity^wNatspeveE^^^^^^^^ K^ '•V^i.-^V^'^l'Vf; 4 8) Mere possibjlity of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a suffident ground to warrant interferenceinanappealagainstacquittal. 9) We, therefore, do not find any good ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal pf respondents/ accused persons Shyamlal Jaiswal, Pankaj Ghoudhary, Shivlal Jaiswal, Prakash Sahu and Kapit Jaiswal. 10) The petjtion fited by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefoFe, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- R.N.Ghandrakar Judge •-iri&