State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lokesh Kumar Yadav
2021 Latest Caselaw 1651 Chatt

                                                                               NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 CRMP No. 1111 of 2020
           • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chilhati, District
             Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ---- Appellant
                                          Versus
           • Lokesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Prabhuram Yadav Aged About 23 Years
             R/o Village Mohla Ward No. 1, Telitola, Police Station Mohla, District
             Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                                     ---- Respondent
      ______________________________________________________________
      For Appellant/State :    Shri Lalit Jangde, Deputy Government Advocate
      For Respondent      :    None

                   D.B. : Hon'ble Mr. Justice, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava &
                          Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor

                                      Order on Board


      Per, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

09.08.2021

1. Heard on prayer for grant of leave to appeal.

2. Though learned State Counsel would submit that statement of the

prosecutrix shows that her consent for sexual act was obtained on false

pretext of marriage, we have gone through the statement of the

prosecutrix and also the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court, taking into consideration various judicial

pronouncements and the evidence on record, particularly, taking into

consideration that the parties had a long standing relationship for about

two years and the prosecutrix was knowing that marriage between

them was not permissible under their caste system, acquittal has been

ordered.

4. The view taken by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be either

perverse or suffering from patent illegality. Mere possibility of another

view could not be made a ground for grant of leave to appeal, giving

limited scope of interference against judgment of acquittal, therefore,

no scope.

5. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

                          Sd/-                                          Sd/-
               (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                    (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                         Judge                                        Judge


Chandra