1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1458 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant. Vs. Vikas @ Baba Ramlal Dube ..Respondent. .... Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the State. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. & F.M. REIS , J. 4th April, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Learned Trial Judge has furnished cogent reasons for acquitting the accused of the charge under Sections 376 and 506 of the Penal Code. The Trial Judge has noted that the evidence to the effect that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age was untrustworthy. The certificate that was issued was of the Zilla Parisad High School at village Kamare. However, both the prosecutrix and the mother had deposed that she was staying in an Ashram school at Boisar. Though the mother of the prosecutrix stated that she would produce the school leaving certificate from the said school, no 2 certificate was produced. Hence, Exhibit 23 was not relied upon for valid reasons. 2. The evidence of the prosecutrix – P.W. 5 has been evaluated. The Learned Trial Judge has found on the basis of the evidence that the room where the offence is alleged to have taken place had a door with grills which could be opened easily even from outside. The prosecutrix had made no attempt to flee away from the scene of offence. The evidence of P.W. 6 who had cohabited with the accused shows that about eight days prior to the last incident, she had left the company of the accused. The Learned Trial Judge has found that though the prosecutrix, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 had relatives at village Kamare and there was an opportunity for the prosecutrix and these witnesses to inform them, none of the relatives in the immediate vicinity were informed. There was a delay in lodging of the FIR. The defence in the statement under Section 313 of the accused was that the prosecution was launched against him since he had refused to marry P.W. 6 who had left him just 8 days before lodging of the report. The Learned Trial Judge has also observed that in the FIR only two 3 incidents have been referred to whereas the prosecutrix alleged that intercourse had taken place on four occasions. There are significant omissions and discrepancies in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the medical evidence has also been found not to support the case of the prosecution. No case has been made out for the grant of leave. The Application is rejected. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. F.M. REIS, J.