^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH « CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, JJ. ApDlicanU Coinplainant Cr.M.P.No.711of2011 Sukhadev Prasad Verma aged about 46 years S/o Shri Ram Khetavan Vennai, farmer, Resident of viltage Tendubhata, P.S. House - Nandghat (Out post- Maro), Tahsi Nawagarh, District (Chhattisgarh) 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. House Nandghat (Outpost Maro) 2. Rajesh Kumar aged about 24 years, S/o Shri Kunwaru Ram Verma 3. Kunwaru Verma aged about 52 years S/o Shri Tiluk Ram Verma . Both resident of village Tendubhata P.S. House - Nandghat (Outpost - Maro), Tahsi! Nawagarh, District—Durg (Chhattisgarh) ApDlication for arant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (41 of the CodeofCrimina! Procedure. 1973. < Shri Ashok Verma, counsel for the applicant. Shri D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent Respondent No. 2 and 3 not noticed. ORDER (Passed on 03rd November. 2011 ) Per T.P. Sharma. J. 1. Learned counsel for the appticant submits that he has wrongty mentioned the provision 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') but this is an appeal under provisio to ^K""^ y^-^\ ^ ^ "'». Y •^•^../ Section 372 of the Code against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.06.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) in S,T.No.48/2010wherebyAdditional S^sions Judge has acquitted the respondent No.1 of the eharges under Sectlons 363, 366 and 376 and respondent No.2 under Section 368ofthelPC. 2. Present ieave to appeal has been preferred after K) days of its limitation. 3. Heard on I.A.No.1/2011 Tor condonatlon of delay in filing lea to appea!. 4. Judgment impugned, copies of the statements of witnesses and copy of charge sheet perused. 5. Leamed counsel for the appllcant submite that although prosecytrix PW/3-Gomti Bai has not supported the case of prosecution and prosecution has declared her hostile but at the time of commission of offence her age was below 18 years. He also submlts that prosecutrix PW/3-Gomti Bai was Tound in possessiai of respondent No. 2 and the offence was registered under Sections 376 and 366 ofthelPC. 6. As per evidence of prosecutrix R/V/3-Gomti Bai, she hersetf has teft the parental shelter and has gone to the house of respondent No. 2. She refused to come back to the house of present applicant i.e. father and as per her evidence, she has married wlth respondent No. 2. In the light of evidence of prosecutrix PW^-Gomti Bai we are unable to give weightage to the evidence of other witnesses. ^!^- Vijay 7. Proviso to Section 372 of the Code gives right to the vietim to prefer an appeal against judgment of acquittai and victim has been defined in sub Section 2 (wa) of the Code, which read as follow:- "Vtoffm" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason oftheact oroirssson fw vwhidft ; the accused person has been charged and the . exfyesson "Victim" includes his or her guardian orlegal ' helr" 8. In the present case, admittedly, PW/3-Gomti Bai may be the victim who has compieted the age of 18 years on 15.04.2010 but she has not preferred any appeal. In absence of any appeal on behalf of her, present applicant i.e.father has preferred an appeal againstthe wishes of prosecutrix. In the light of evidence of prosecutrix PW/3- Gomti Bai, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned. We also do not find any ground for condonation, of delay in filing leave to appeal. 9. Consequently, !.A.No.1/2)11 is liable to be dismtesect and hereby dismissed. 10. As a result, Cr.M.P. No. 711 /2011 stands dismissed. Sd/- T-P.Sharma Judge Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge