1 Appln No.792/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.792 of 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant versus Nandu Laxman Gangurde & ors ... Respondents ... Smt.V.R. Bhosale for the applicant State. CORAM : V.M.KANADE AND A.M.THIPSAY, JJ DATED : 25th August 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for leave to file appeal filed by the State Government. The judgment and order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Malegaon dated 1st April 2011 is challenged by the State by the said judgment and order. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC and also was pleased to acquit the accused no.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 4 of the Dowry 2 Appln No.792/11 Prohibition Act. Learned APP has taken us through the judgment and order of the trial court. It is submitted that the accused had sexual relations with the prosecutrix after promising the prosecutrix that he would marry her. However, he demanded a dowry of Rs.Three lakhs just few days before the marriage and when this amount was not paid, he refused to marry her and therefore this complaint was filed under section 376 of the IPC r/w section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. We have gone through the notes of evidence. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses. We have also gone through the documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution. In our view, after having gone through the evidence on record, the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the demand of dowry of Rs.Three lakhs was not established by the prosecution and therefore, the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was not established. 4. So far as offence under section 376 of the IPC is concerned, it is an admitted position that the prosecutrix was 18 years of age and the medical evidence also clearly shows that she was habituated to sex. The evidence of the prosecutrix also shows that she had intercourse with the accused on more than one occasion and she could have raised a hue and cry if the said act was without her consent. In her cross examination, she has however admitted that she never raised any hue and cry when the accused had intercourse with her. Under these circumstances, therefore, the trial court has 3 Appln No.792/11 rightly held that the prosecution has not established that the accused had committed offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. Leave therefore is refused. Appeal is dismissed. (V.M.KANADE, J) (A.M.THIPSAY, J)