drp {1} Cri. Application No.4729/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4729 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Dattatraya Murlidhar Deshmukh RESPONDENT ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 8th December 2010 PER COURT: 1. This application has been filed by the applicant State challenging the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, dated 20.08.2010, in Sessions Case No.61/2009, acquitting the respondent-accused for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution had alleged that the respondent- accused had committed rape on PW-4 prosecutorix on 11th April 2009, in the afternoon. Thereafter, on 14.04.2009 a report came to be lodged at Exhibit-23 on the basis of which the investigation had drp {2} Cri. Application No.4729/2010 commenced. The prosecution had adduced evidence of grand mother and mother of the victim and had relied upon the evidence of PW-1 Dr.Jotsana Davare, who had examined the victim. Evidence of PW-1 Dr.Jotsana Davare reveals that she did not notice any marks of violence on her arm, waist, breast, chest, lower part of abdomen, inner aspect of thigh and back. Her gait was normal, but the victim was experiencing difficulty in urination and defection. She had also noticed tenderness present on the external genetails and swelling on vulva and her Hymen was intact. Therefore, P.V. Examination was not done. In cross examination, she has admitted that due to urinary infection pain during urination is possible. She had opined that there may be possibility of sexual intercourse. 3. Prosecution had examined PW-4 victim of the sexual assault. On account of the fact that she was aged barely 4 years, she could not state explicitly as to what the respondent-accused had done. However, she had stated that the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. In cross examination, she had admitted “my grant mother and APP uncle shown me accused in Court. Prior to this I have not seen accused Datta Mama at any time.” She then admits that “Today my grand mother taught me to speak in Court.” She has ultimately admitted “ Accused Datta Mama had not done anything with me.”. The trial court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence against the respondent – accused. drp {3} Cri. Application No.4729/2010 4. With the assistance of learned APP, we have perused the findings of the trial court as well as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Upon such perusal, according to us, there is no perversity in the reasoning of the trial court to justify any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the trial court, based on the evidence on record, is a possible view to be taken. In that light of the matter, therefore, there being no merit in the present application, the application is dismissed. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln4729-10