HIGH COURT OF CHHA?TiSGAEjj AT S§LAS?UR DIV’iSlGN EENm‘é CGRAM. HUN BLE SHRI RAJEEV’ GUPTA C J HGN’”LE SHR: $UN'L K MAR o: “HA J CLMP. No.54 a? 2mm. Anniicant State of Chhattisgarh, npy8uaiit Thr" ‘gr tre Dimrict Magstrate District Eliaspur \CG.) VERSES Nan-anniicant Maniram Remmident 5/0. Awadha Yadav, Aged about — 25 years R76. vmage ~ Keshakhurd, Chow-k; Fastemur, PS. Mungeli, District Biiaspur (CG) AnniicaEion for Grant of leave to agneal Uis 37813} and "rewararuuae “E“ge ““ “f; afCi‘ammH P aaedm’e Code 19?:5. Present . bhnAKhai Mxsnra Deputv bovi Aavocate forthe Qfanel ycuuunc: ORDER (18m Marchs 2M0} The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Raieev Gupta, CJ. Shri AkhEl Mishra, learned Deputy. Government Advocate is heard on 1A No.1/2GOQ, an appiication for condonation of the deiay in fiiing the perition under Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C. 2‘) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate and the grounds taken tn the appiication, we are satis 'ed that the petitfener I‘ State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fiiing the petition u)nder Section 378(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. 3) Li‘s No.1/2009, therefore, is aliowed and the deiay in fihng the petition undef Section 378(3) of the CrP‘Q, is hereby condoned. 4) Shn Akhii Mishra, Qearned Deputy Government Advocare is heard on the question of grant of Ieave to appeai against the acquittat of respondent / accused Maniram. 5) Potice Mungeli, District Biiaspur, after compietion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of the prosecutrix, cherge-eheeted respondent/ accused Maniram for the atieged commission of the offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduied Castes and Scheduied Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 198g: on the accusation of his having committed sexuai intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against her wiii, for a period of’about seven months. 6) Respondent / accused Maniram abjured his guiit and pleaded faise implication to the charges framed by the triai Court under Section 376 of the IPC and $ection 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduied Castes and Scheduied Tribes (Prevention ef Atrocities) Act, 1989 ‘7) At the triai, the above charges against the respondent/ accused Maniram were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW—t Gayatri Bai, F’W-2 Bhaklaram, PW—3 Bhagwati Bai, F’W-4 Saiikram, PW—5 Dr. Amit Lai, PW-G Anjori Satnami, PW—7 Prakash YadavL PW-8 KID‘ Prabhakar, PW—Q Susri Rekha Banswar, // ,,// ,t’W-‘m Puran Singh. F?W-11 Er. Ami Singh, PW-12 Hanuman Das, PW—1 3 Dr. Rajes'hwari Uraon, PW-M Siya Saran Tiwari. ’ 8) Respondent'faccused Maniram aiso examine DW—1‘ d Dr. RK. Jitpure in support of his defence. 9) The triai Court on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence ied by the presecution and the defence found that the prosecution miserably failed in estabiishing that the prosecutrix was less than 1'6 years of age on the date of the incident; and the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the entire episode. The trial Court, therefore: acquitted respondent/accused Manlram of the above charges vide impugned judgment dated 03.1 1 .2067. 1D) Shti Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred tn holding that the prosecutrix was above i6 years of age by giving undue weight to the ossification test report and holding that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 11) The First information Report in the case came to be lodged after about 8 months of the first aiieged act of sexuai intercourse by the accused with the prosecutrix. This too happened because the pregnancy of the prosecutrix became known to her parents. The prosecutrix has made a candid admission in para—23 of her cross examination that her affair with the accused continued for 8~9 months and she did not disclose about t to anyone in her famiiy. The prosecutrix was subjected to ossification test at the behest of iavestigating agency itseif. On ossification test, her age was found to be between 15-17 years with the margin of two years on either side. 12) On due consideration of the submissions of iearned Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the triai Court leading to acquittal of respondent I accused Maniram; the evidence ted by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of the prosecutrix; and the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court ieading to acquittal of respondent l accused Maniram do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. t3) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in this appeal against acquittal. i4) 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 Maniram, therefore, is liable to be dismissed ‘ sit/u Sandi Katmai“ $faiaa gadge ,\ii i \¥‘n . and is hereby dismissed.