1 Crra.288/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATIN NO.288 OF 2007 Vandana Rajendra Pardeshi ... Petitioner. Versus Gopal @ Sanjay Ramsing Pardeshi And Another. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. D.S. Raut, holding for Shri. J.R. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. R.R. Mane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State – respondent No.2. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL J. DATE: 21st AUGUST 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner is the prosecutrix. Respondent No.1 – accused in the sessions case was residing near the house of the petitioner. The accused used to visit the house of the 2 Crra.288/2007 complainant in the absence of the parents and brother of the petitioner. It is alleged that the accused promised the petitioner that he would marry with her and lured her to maintain sexual relations with her. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent continued for few months. The petitioner became pregnant. Marriage of the petitioner was settled with a third person which was also broken due to the disclosure of the fact that the petitioner remained pregnant and delivered a child. On the complaint the police lodged prosecution against the respondent/accused for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3) After perusal of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the other evidence including CA report, Spot panchanama and the DNA report, the trial Court reached conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. From the evidence led by the 3 Crra.288/2007 prosecution the prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner was forced to maintain sexual relations with respondent accused and the sexual act was against consent of the petitioner. The prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner was minor. 4) If the respondent/accused had forced the petitioner to maintain sexual relations then the petitioner would have complained to her parents much earlier. The plea that she kept quite as the respondent/accused promised to marry with her was not supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. For want of evidence the trial Court acquitted the respondent of the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5) Considering the limitations in entertaining this revision filed by the complainant under section 401 of the Code of Criminal procedure, I do not find any case made 4 Crra.288/2007 out. 6) The criminal revision application is dismissed. (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crra.288.07