1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 4197/2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 806/2008 & Criminal Appeal No. 806/2008. State of Maharashtra at the instance of Sindewahi Police Station, Distt.Chandrapur vs. Gurudas @ Yuvraj Manohar Mandade ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : A.P. Lavande & Prasanna B.Varale,JJ. DATE : 17.4.2009 Heard Mr. Kakde, learned A.P.P. for the applicant/ appellant and Mr. Jawde, advocate holding for Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The applicant/ appellant seeks leave to appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.8.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 26/2005 by which the respondent has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1) (XII) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix, who at the relevant time was aged about 21 years and belonging to Gond community 2` (S.T.), was residing at village Karva along with her parents. The prosecutrix had studied up to 11th standard. The respondent who is also the resident of the same village used to visit the house of one Lavkush Pusam whose wife is cousin sister of the prosecutirx. The prosecutrix came in contact with the accused and friendship developed between the prosecutrix and the respondent. According to the prosecution, the respondent made false promise to the prosecutrix to marry her and had intercourse with her on several occasions on account of which the prosecutirx became pregnant. When the prosecutrix carried pregnancy of four months her mother inquired with her and at that time the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother. On 12.6.2005, a panchayat meeting was called which was not attended by the respondent. Since the accused refused to marry the prosecutrix, report was lodged at the Police Station, Sindewahi on 4.7.2005. 4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecutrix and held that the prosecution had not proved that between March, 2005 to June, 2005 the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her consent. The Court also recorded a negative 3` finding against the prosecution insofar as the offence of cheating is concerned. The Court also held that the prosecution had not proved that the accused was in a position to dominate the will of the prosecutrix. Consequently, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused. 5. Mr. Kakde, the learned A.P.P. for the applicant/ appellant submitted that the acquittal recorded by the trial court is patently unsustainable in law and the findings recorded by the trial court are contrary to the evidence led by the prosecution. He further submitted that there was absolutely no reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix that initially the respondent threatened her and had intercourse and thereafter the respondent had intercourse with the prosecutrix on several occasions after making the promise of marriage. He, therefore, submitted that the Judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, Mr. Jawade supported the impugned Judgment and order. 7. Having heard the learned A.P.P. for the appellant/ applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no perversity in the findings 4` given by the learned Sessions Judge. The trial Court for recording the findings that there was no cheating and no offence of rape are made out, relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Uday vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2003 Supreme Court, 1639) and held that the story of the prosecutrix that initially the respondent threatened the prosecutrix and had intercourse with her and thereafter had intercourse with her by giving promises of marriage was not acceptable. From the perusal of the impugned Judgment, we find that the findings given by the Sessions Court for recording the findings against the prosecution cannot be said to be perverse warranting appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the Sessions Court is a possible view and, therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned Judgment and order. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal as well as criminal appeal no. 806/2008 are dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`