JUDGMENT : The instant Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2017, whereby the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have been acquitted from the charge under section 376, 379 and 120-B IPC by the learned Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the State-appellant Mr. Ravi Prakash, Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that I.A. No. 11474/2018 has been filed for condonation of delay of 297 days in preferring the Acquittal Appeal and I.A. No. 11473/2018 has been preferred under section 378(3) Cr.PC for grant of Leave to Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the State appellant Mr. Ravi Prakash has submitted that evidence on record is sufficient to convict the Respondent No. 1 and 2 for the charge under section 376, 379 and 120-B IPC, but the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the delay has been caused because after the judgment of acquittal, relevant papers for filing Acquittal Appeal has been sent by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Lohardaga to the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga on 02.02.2018 and thereafter, vide letter no. 239/legal dated 18.07.2018, Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga sent the same to the Law Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for sanction. After sanction accorded by Law Secretary, copy was served upon the Office of Advocate General, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 06.08.2018. Thereafter file was handed over to the present counsel. As such, there is a delay in preferring the instant appeal against the judgment of acquittal, though it is not deliberate. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials brought on record. It appears that the case has been instituted by the victim who has been examined as P.W.1, stating therein that she is aged 55 years. After selling vegetables, she was returning to her village Jojoro, on the tempo of Meraj Ansari in which four persons of village Hurhud were also sitting. When tempo reached near Hurhud More, tempo driver asked the victim to get down, upon which she has stated that he has taken fare up to Jingi and she is an old lady, he must leave her at Jingi, but tempo driver did not accede to her request and thus all the passengers got down. When tempo reached near Hurhud More, tempo driver asked the victim to get down, upon which she has stated that he has taken fare up to Jingi and she is an old lady, he must leave her at Jingi, but tempo driver did not accede to her request and thus all the passengers got down. It is further submitted that the when victim proceeded towards Jingi alone, one person aged 22 years followed her and at a lonely place at the point of pistol, he has taken the victim towards west of Futkal tree. The informant raised brawl, but nobody came for her rescue, since it was night and thereafter he committed rape on the informant and money earned after selling vegetables to the tune of Rs. 700/- have been taken away by the accused. The informant thereafter went to her house and disclosed the matter to the family members and claimed to identify the accused after seeing him as she was not knowing the name of the accused person. 5. On the basis of written report, police has registered Kuru P.S. Case No. 13/2011 dated 28.01.2011 under section 376/379/120-B IPC against unknown accused persons and after completion of the investigation, police has submitted charge sheet against the accused Ram Lagan Uraon and Ajmer Ansari @ Meraj Ansari under section 376/379/120-B IPC. Cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 07.05.2011 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 23.05.2011. Charges were framed against the accused Ram Lagan Uraon under section 376 and 379 IPC on 20.07.2015 and also against Ajmer Ansari under section 120-B IPC, which was explained to the Respondent No. 1 and 2, to which they denied the charges and thus case was put for trial. 6. In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution has examined altogether five prosecution witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim Khatoon. P.W.2 is Bablu Uraon. P.W.3 is Bhukhla Uraon. PW.4 is Dr. Usha Kumari and P.W.5 is Pradeep Sobaiya. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Prosecution has also adduced certain documentary evidence in support of its case. In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution has examined altogether five prosecution witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim Khatoon. P.W.2 is Bablu Uraon. P.W.3 is Bhukhla Uraon. PW.4 is Dr. Usha Kumari and P.W.5 is Pradeep Sobaiya. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Prosecution has also adduced certain documentary evidence in support of its case. Medical report of the victim has been proved and marked as Ext.1, written report has been proved and marked as Ext.2, formal FIR has been proved and marked as Ext.3 and requisition made by the Investigating Officer for medical examination of the victim has been proved and marked as Ext.4. 7. From perusal of the evidence brought on record, it appears that P.W.2 Bablu Uraon and P.W.3 Bhukhla Uraon have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. So far as the evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Usha Kumari is concerned, she examined the victim on 29.01.2011 and has not found any mark of violence in any part of the body. Slight pubic hair was present. There was no mark of violence in pelvic region also. Hymen not intact. Vaginal orifice admits two fingers. Vaginal swab was taken and sent to laboratory to see spermatozoa. As per the opinion of the doctor, there is no spermatozoa found in vaginal swab and there is no medical evidence of recent sexual activity. Medical report has been prepared in the handwriting of the doctor which also bears her signature, which has been marked as Ext.1. During cross-examination, doctor has categorically stated that she has not found any injury on any part of the body and there was no stain found on the clothes of the victim. 8. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated during his cross-examination that he has not found any mark of violence at the place of occurrence nor he has collected the torn clothes and damaged bangles. This witness has further stated that all the tempo used to stop lastly at Hurhud More. Between Kuru to Hurhud More, about 8-10 tempo are plying. He has stated during his cross-examination that he has not found any mark of violence at the place of occurrence nor he has collected the torn clothes and damaged bangles. This witness has further stated that all the tempo used to stop lastly at Hurhud More. Between Kuru to Hurhud More, about 8-10 tempo are plying. This Court has also perused the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) who has categorically stated in her evidence before the Court that while she was coming alone on foot, a boy stopped her in the way and dragged her towards the west near futkal tree and at the point of pistol, committed rape on her and thereafter she saw that Meraj Ansari was returning with Auto rickshaw. She has reported the matter to Sub Inspector of Police, Kuru Police Station who recorded the same on which, she put her thumb impression. She has found involvement of Meraj Ansari for the alleged offence. She has categorically that she used to sale vegetables and travel on auto rickshaw every day. She has further stated that occurrence was committed for approximately half an hour and subsequently left alone. During that period, she fell on the ground, but has not sustained any injury, nor her clothes were torn, nor her blouse and petticoat have been torn. She has not given clothes to the police. 9. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that her allegation of commission of rape is not corroborated, rather she has stated during her cross-examination that there was an altercation in which she was caught and let off by the accused. Further, from the medical evidence, it appears that victim has attained menopause being an old lady and the Medical Officer has not found any evidence of recent sexual activities. 10. Under the aforesaid background facts and circumstances and in view of the discussions made above, we are not inclined to grant Leave to Appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal as there is no material on record to suggest that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is perverse. Learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons from the charge and conviction under section 376, 379 and 120-B IPC. However, on consideration of the explanation urged for the delay in filing this Memo of Appeal, limitation petition vide I.A. No. 11474/2018 is allowed. Learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons from the charge and conviction under section 376, 379 and 120-B IPC. However, on consideration of the explanation urged for the delay in filing this Memo of Appeal, limitation petition vide I.A. No. 11474/2018 is allowed. I.A. No. 11473/2018 seeking Leave to Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the instant Acquittal Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed