ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned APP for the State and private opposite parties. 2. Petitioner seeks grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 7th September, 2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2015. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad on the complaint case, i.e., C.P. Case No. 566 of 2013. 3. The complaint petition filed on 26th October, 2010 bearing No. 1930 of 2010, inter alia, alleged that the complainant's husband was running a stamp vending shop adjacent to the main gate of Consumer Forum, Dhanbad. Her husband was handicapped. She used to extend support in the business. On 8th September, 2010 at about 6.00 p.m. after closing the Gumti, she went to meet the natural call behind Consumer Forum building. The accused persons under influence of liquor laid her. accused Santosh gagged her mouth and other accused Karamveer Singh committed rape on her. She tried to raise alarm, but her mouth was gagged. Thereafter. accused, Santosh also committed rape on her. Finding her late in returning from call of nature, her husband came there and found both accused person indulging with his wife and committing rape. On seeing her husband, both accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. Complainant and her husband went to police station after two days of occurrence on 10th September. 2010, but no action was taken. They had also sent letters to SP and DIG, but no avail. Thereafter, a complaint case was filed. In the complaint case, initially learned Court below had called for a report from the concerned Police Station, which led to institution of an FIR being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 320 of 2012 on 15th April, 2012. 4. After investigation, final form was submitted by the police stating that the alleged occurrence was false and fabricated and the accused persons had been falsely implicated in this case. After submission of final form by the police, protest-cum-complaint petition was filed by the complainant, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 566 of 2013. On this protest petition. statement of the complainant was taken and those of enquiry witnesses. Learned Court of Sessions took cognizance of the offence under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of final form by the police, protest-cum-complaint petition was filed by the complainant, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 566 of 2013. On this protest petition. statement of the complainant was taken and those of enquiry witnesses. Learned Court of Sessions took cognizance of the offence under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the case 'was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. it was committed to this Court. Charges were framed on 1st March, 2016 under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused persons denied and claimed to be tried. 5. Complainant examined herself and her husband (PW 2), Ratan Kumar in support of her case. After conclusion of complainant's witnesses, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313. Cr PC. They denied the occurrence and stated that due to previous enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this case. 6. Leamed Trial Court analyzed the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 her husband and also considered the submission of counsel for defence. It came to the conclusion that there was no iota of evidence to show that the accused persons had any physical contact with the victim. The complaint was lodged on 26th October, 2010 after about one and half months of the alleged occurrence on 8th September. 2010 at 6.00 p.m. without any explanation. Even as per the statement of complainant, she had reported to the police after two days. Admittedly. she was not medically examined. She was 45 years of age and according to her statement this was her second marriage with PW 2. Learned Trial Court also observed that there is an admitted case that accused persons had made complaint to SDO, Dhanbad for removing his Gumti, as a result the Gumti of PW2 was removed. Accused No. 1, Karamveer was the Peskar of Consumer Forum while accused No.2 was the driver of the said forum. On several occasions skirmishes had taken place between them. 7. In totality, learned Court found that prosecution had utterly failed to establish the offence under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned findings rendered by learned Court below are perverse and fit to be assailed in appeal. 7. In totality, learned Court found that prosecution had utterly failed to establish the offence under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned findings rendered by learned Court below are perverse and fit to be assailed in appeal. The complainant and her husband are consistent in their evidence which 'has been wrongly disbelieved by learned Trial Court. Complainant being a lady, had enough explanation for delay in filing the complaint case as has also been explained in the complaint petition. The occurrence was reported to the police on 10th September, 2010, but no action was taken. They had also sent letters to SP and DIG but no avail. In such circumstances, petitioner may be allowed special leave to appeal to assail the findings of learned Trial Court before the Appellate Court. 9. Learned counsel for private opposite parties have supported the impugned judgment and the findings of acquittal. He has also mentioned about the unexplained delay in filing the complaint petition. There are no evidence on record to show that they had made a report to the police and thereafter to SP and DIG. There was no medical examination to corroborate the act of rape by the accused persons, in the facts and circumstances that the complainant herself brought the matter before the Court after one and half months. It is admitted that there was enmity between the parties. The husband of the complainant was running a stamp vending Gumti adjacent to the main gate of Consumer Forum and had been asked to remove the same. In fact, the complainant had also accepted in the receipt of notice from SDO Office for removing the said Gumti. She had also admitted that Chairman. Consumer Forum and the present accused used to exert pressure upon them for removing the Gumti because great inconvenience was caused in parking the official vehicle. The entire prosecution case was wholly improbable and the findings of learned trial Court are therefore, unimpeachable. Hence. petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned APP for the State has also supported the impugned judgment. 11. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned judgment. We have given anxious thought to the material evidence discussed by learned Trial Court. 12. Hence. petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned APP for the State has also supported the impugned judgment. 11. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned judgment. We have given anxious thought to the material evidence discussed by learned Trial Court. 12. From the statement of PW 1-complainant, it appears that the alleged act was committed on 8th September. 2010 at about 6.00 p.m. when the complainant had gone to meet the call of nature behind Consumer Forum building. In the complaint. she had stated that when her husband came there he found the two accused persons were indulging in acts of rape on her. On seeing her husband, they ran away from the place of occurrence. Whereas, in her deposition, she had stated that she become unconscious, and his husband took her to house. She had also stated that a complaint was lodged after one and half months from the date of occurrence. That she had gone to the police earlier with her written complaint. She further stated that her marriage was solemnized with Ratan Kumar in the year 1995 and she is his second wife. She also admitted that in the year 2006, license of stamp vendor was canceled due to selling of counterfeit stamp. She also admitted that she was in respect of notice from' SDO Office for removing the Gumti and that Chairman, Consumer Forum and the present accused used to exert pressure upon them for removing the Gumti. as it was causing inconvenience in parking the official vehicle. Gumti was adjacent to Consumer Forum Building. In her cross-examination, she admitted to have filed a case for outraging her modesty against her own father-in-law, brother-in-law and nephew. It was disposed of on the basis of written 'Mafinama. She also admitted that on 17th March, 2015, she had filed a case against her neighbour Raju being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 260 of 2015. She further admitted that she had instituted' a case, in which she had not stated about the fact of commission of rape, but later on instituted a complaint case adding fact of rape committed by Raju. She further admitted that she had instituted' a case, in which she had not stated about the fact of commission of rape, but later on instituted a complaint case adding fact of rape committed by Raju. In her cross-examination, she further admitted that on 17th May, 2015 on the basis of written complaint by the neighbourers namely Saryu Saren Prasad, Rabindra Kumar, Sanjay, Raju and Arbind, police conducted raid in her house on the allegation of flesh trading going on in her house. She submitted that at the time of occurrence no one was present in the hotel. She further stated that Gumti of other stamp vendor was situated about 50 ft. away from her Gumti. SDO Office was situated about 100 meter away from the place of occurrence. She further stated that she could not raise alarm or make hue and cry because her mouth was gagged by the accused Santosh Kumar. She further stated that no one was present when crime was committed. She did not raise alarm because she become unconscious. Her husband and Rickshaw-puller took her to the house. They had not disclosed this fact to anyone. neither medical examination was conducted. Matter was reported to the police after: 1-2 days. When no action was taken then only they had filed the complaint case. She had disclosed entire fact to her husband. Her husband PW 2 had supported the incidence that had taken place in the year 2010 at about 6:30 p.m., when his wife had gone to pass urine in the Kohinur Ground. Accused Santosh Kumar was the driver of the Chairman. Consumer Forum. who had put handkerchief upon her mouth and Karamveer committed rape. Both were under influence of liquor. During his cross-examination, he admitted that Chairman. Consumer Forum made a complaint for removal of Gumti and accused had also made a complaint before SDO. He admitted that Gumti had been removed from that place. He also stated that Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 352 of 2006 under Sections 419/420/467/468/474 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. Defence pleaded innocence. 13. Learned counsel for the defence sought to demolish the statement of the prosecution witness and submitted that the delay in lodging of FIR is unexplained and there are no corroborative evidence to establish the offence of rape. Defence pleaded innocence. 13. Learned counsel for the defence sought to demolish the statement of the prosecution witness and submitted that the delay in lodging of FIR is unexplained and there are no corroborative evidence to establish the offence of rape. The lady was of a doubtful character and no medical examination of the prosecutrix was made. Therefore. there was no question of examining the injury mark upon her body or any sign of recent sexual activities were found. 14. On analysis of material evidence on record as discussed by learned Trial Court, we are of the considered view that petitioner has failed to make out good grounds to question the findings of acquittal rendered by learned Trial Court. The delay of one and half months in lodging the complaint, absence of any medical opinion of incidence or rape or injury on the prosecutrix together with the glaring inconsistencies in her statements made on oath and in complaint clearly goes to show that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges of rape beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.