IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE SHRI VRAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. CORAM‘. CLMP. No. 233 of 2010 Appiicant . State of Chhattisgarh, through the Appellant Station House Officer, P.S., .A.J.K. District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS m(‘ Non —— Applicants 1. Trilekchand Bhojasiyas Sic Respcndents Dulichand, aged about 29 years, R/o Station Read, Ramnagar, Ward N05, Naila Police Chowki Naila, Thaha Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) i 2. Devi Prasad, Slo Mayaram Satnami, aged abcut 36 years, R/o Hardivishai, Thana Baiauda, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Aggiication for Grant of leave to aggeal under Section 378$) and memorandum of aQQeaI under Section 378m of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Present: Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORDER 126‘“ Apr“, 2am) The following order of the Count Was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C,J. By allowing LA. No. 01f2010, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record. 2) Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Government Advocate ‘s heard on/ttgtguestion of grant of leave to appeal against the H 0'3 [Q (a acquittal of respondents/ accused persons Tfiiokchand Bhojasiya and Devi Prasad. 3) PoHce A.J.K.- Janjgir, after campietion of the investigation of the case registered 0n the report of the prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondents! accused persons Tritokchand Bhojasiya and Devi Prasad, for the alteged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 376 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (X) of the Scheduied Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, on the accusation of respondent] accused Triiokchand Bhoiasiya having committed sexuai interCourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against her wili for a period of about one year and of both of them having abused and threatened the prosecutrix. 4) The respondents! accused persons abjured their guiit and pieaded faise implication to the charges framed by the triai Court under Sections 294, 506 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (Xil) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduied Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 5) At the trial, the above charges against the respondents/ accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW-1 Suhawan Bai, PW—2 Premlal, PW-S Umedram, PW—4 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Smt. Mamta Singh, PW-6 Dr. P.C. Jain, P‘iN-7 Shanku Kumar, PW—8 G.L. Bharati, PW-9 N.S. Rajput, PW—10 Dri Anil Kumar Jagat and PW—11 Rajia Begum 6) The trial Court on a dose scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the tria! in general and that of the prosecutrix in particuiar found that the prosecutrix who was a grown—up woman aged about 28 years, was a consenting party to the entire episode. The triai Court, therefore, found it quite unsafe to act upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as such, acquitted respondents/ accused persons Triiokchand Bhojasiya and Devi Prasad vide impugned judgment dated 23.10.2009, passed in Special Case No.39/2009. 7) Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Government Advocate vehementiy argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecutrix on flimsy and untenable grounds. 8) The prosecutrix in the present case is a grown—up woman aged about 28 years. According to the prosecutrix, she was introduced to accused Trilokchand Bhojasiya by the prosecution witness Rajia Begum, who was her land—lady. in her deposition before the trial Court she admitted in several paragraphs that she had developed an affair with the accused; they used to visit each other’s house frequently; they used to stay in each other’s house for days together; she permitted the accused to commit sexual intercourse with her on her own free will and consent. The First information Report came to be lodged on 07-07—2008 i.e. after more than six months of the first alleged act of sexual intercourse by the accused, that too when the prosecutrix became pregnant and the accused did not agree to marry her. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondents / accused persons; the evidence led by theprosecution at the trial in general and that of the prosecutrix in particular; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondents l accused . persons, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 10) Mere possibility of another View on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground lto warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 11) We, therefore, do not find any good ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/ accused persons. 12) 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 respondentsf accused persons Trilokchand Bhojasiya and Devi Prasad, vide impugned judgment dated 23-10-2009 passed in subbu Special Case No.39/2009, therefore, fails and is hereby dismis Sdl- Sd/- l } ) Sunil Kumar Sinha '—'?"" H Chief Justice i Judge