1 (Appln 883 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 883 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Vs. Babasaheb Dinkar Desai ...Respondent ----- Dr.F.R. Shaikh -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, & A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED: 5th September, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the State. 2. The State has filed this application for leave to file appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur dated 2.4.2011. By the said judgment and order, the Learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the appeal which was filed by the Respondent-Accused against the order of conviction passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge convicting him for the offence punishabe under sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 (Appln 883 of 2011) 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Respondent-Accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and prosecutrix had given her consent after the accused had promised to marry her. However, when she became pregnant, he refused to marry her and sent her an amount of Rs.5,000/- and told her to terminate the pregnancy. A complaint was filed by the prosecutrix and an offence was registered vide C.R. No.88 of 2002. The prosecutrix, admittedly, was more than 18 years of age. The Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the said offences and against this order, the Respondent-Accused preferred an appeal before the Session Court. The Sessions Judge after taking into consideration various circumstances which were brought on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not established commission of offence under sections 376 and 417 of the IPC. It appears that the complaint was lodged almost after two and half years and the prosecutrix in her cross examination admitted that though the first sexual intercourse took place in December, 1999, she did not inform her parents and only after she became pregnant and the accused refused to marry her a complaint was filed by her against the accused. 3 (Appln 883 of 2011) 4. Taking into consideration the said statement of the prosecutrix, in our opinion, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Court. Hence, it will not be possible to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Leave, therefore, is refused. Criminal Application is, accordingly, disposed of. (A.M.THIPSAY J.) (V.M. KANADE J.)