dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2009 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. APPEAL NO. APPEAL NO. OF OF OF 2008 2008 2008 The State of Maharashtra Petitioner (orig. complainant) Vs. Bharat Tamma Sale Respondent Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 14th January, 2009. : 14th January, 2009. : 14th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. This is an application by the State for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.79 of 2008 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Sangli dated 26.09.2008. 2. The brief facts are as follows: . A 27 years old lady has alleged that the accused had committed rape on her. The trial court found that when the complaint was filed, the lady was 27 years old and she was carrying 9 months pregnancy. During the investigation, she delivered a child and DNA ( 2 ) confirmed that the accused was father of the child. But since the prosecutrix did not complain for nine months after the incident, the trial Court was of the view that the relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix was consensual and, therefore, it did not convict the respondent. The trial Court also found that there had been long standing relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused and when the accused refused to recognise her as wife and also refused to recognise the child in the womb of the prosecutrix as his child, she filed the complaint. 3. We do not find any reason why the findings of the trial Court be upset. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. Application is accordingly dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (BILAL (BILAL (BILAL NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.)