r 'i 3>ina33oad"Rwiwii!ad03ao35ni aO»O^NOLL3gSH.uMuY3<iZ6ENOI.i3aS<i3aNnNOISiA3a1VNiWili3 (9:)) jndfey - lauisia 'eMpueqii$i uoiieis ssnod :tl8naiyj. <iy^Si»a|43psiBls ; INTOnddV-NON snsa3A- ^ oi-& ipf' (Q -^C. (03)jnd(eai3UisiQp A^.c^^.^'' " .^s^- jndjey <je8eN pueuv '(JeMeN sspisag) ^^g^or^.^Y<y1^^g ejetuet|BN '^ -ON --iw 'Auo]o3 -a-M-d •?i?^..--^>\v^ 'o/y 'H (J ygias ueAiigeiia eiri 'o/s "" "' <UBaA szinoc|e p^v <]iied jeipni : jLNVOTTd^ 900Z/ ^g^- "GN UOlSiASg lBUiulp3 HMVOSiliVHHD ^ yndsviia iv jo 3ani^3nanr ao lanoo HSIH 3M.W suag M XI-HC-22 ^€?Eipl1?F(;^^1W^.':(6<^W3<.- Effi: *<l*ini 9) •<!<») P»-*(W\(_- f^-ijr;f2j»6^ "'^.200 sn^T^i R;-li?b 31T^?[ ^tff^^ifi^ ^4 3II^I?BITO( tlfStT 22.56.2006 Applicant TydTar Ptttjf by Shri ffidtioj Paranjpe, Adweate, State hyShri &.K^walt'e, t>y,6'<n|ernm?nt Adypcate. "Tliis revisioriwasfinallyheai'dto^ay. The nvisiQn js directed ^gQinst'tfw order clatsd 04^)1.2006 passacffaY t^a ^ Additwnal Sessions ^udge (Fast Track Court), RoipurjnSesSJonsTrialNQ. 4/2006 wh^rebychdrge under Sectton 376 I.P.C. was frsimed against the iapj)!ic|int. Bfief facts are that the RTOsecipl'rix, aged about 19 yews, tiveA with her mother near th? school ml ;ul ,- ' . : . ' •:"/:':.:..""' workjf as maid-sei'vsnt m sever'al housed working inahouseQt Shyam;Nigar asci] wfls atso vjsitin^ that house as o ddncej the prosecutrix met the applicant; th^ both fell in love and developed sexual took a house ici Shatobdt Ncggr on re^t and continued cohabiTing wlth the- prosecutrix fln the assuranc^ 2C®5theprosecutrixbecamepregnant.l -•'s^dc'l^ft'f *il+l^f '^-'S^T3t:<Rl^t< ^3|fiOT3I)^I: 1 Shy(m Negar. 1-ier mother !. The prosecutrtxwas dtso .bflby-sitter. Th&appliiy»nt teacher. In January 2003 for th& first timfe atid •elattonship. The opplicarrF ^pf fflQrriage. In .Jahuar^ She delivet'sd aroale child on 2S August 2CU5 Jn Wadhwoni ( I^ui-sin^ Mom& Since the applicant refused to many.hep, a report was'locfged by fhe mother of the prosecutrix ih Mtdvila 77»£wniR<|iipur. Another report was lodged by the pr'osecu'trix on 2.1Q.^CX36^statingthotsexual •&- :[TT^^Ra |- XI-HC-22' 317^1 W ISFri^sn^i ^+<ich yfid TS ^PlRRfi 'B^flWIS. &<fll'ali<i- tfiNwiwfrai "^ 200. l^sit' inTer-course by The applicanT "-was t|»iThouy her consenT. In her stofement under Section 161 Cr.P.C whjfe she ysed to bdby-sit iri the appeilant used to^visit ther®as a Mnce love with the appellantand estcfelish fst applicant. Thereafter', the appetldnf a house on rent iri Shatabdi Nagar her, On the tesis of these facts chai'ge under Section 376 I.P.C. impugnedorcfer. Shri Manoi Par'aiype, tearned assailed the impugned order qn the prosecytfon story, as7 unfolded ty Ssction 173 Cr.P.C. Js;accepted at it^ caseunder Section 376 I.P.C. is noM It was argued tKat the statsmentl under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cleat'l)' r^ marry wa3 givjsn .subsequently irft^ applicant and hdd established sexual| that when the applicant cohabited | first time, it was on ah assuronce ofl Placing reliance on Vday v. State irftfcr qiiiti-l'ili ywSi ^ 'fe'zt <Rd<41< , ^? snfigH sn^i • , the prosecutrix stated that house at Shyam Magar, the teacher where she fell in i^d sexual relattonshjp wifh the lassuped to marryher and took bnd coritinued to cohabjt with , leomed triql Judge fmmed dgainst the appljcont, vide CQUnsel for the apRlicant has Iground thct eyeh if the entir'e material placed by it ynder foce value, even a prima facie ^ndde out c^ainstthe apjplicant. 1 dflthe prosecutrix recprded fevealed that the assunince to: she felt in love with the relationshig. Itdpes notshow |with the prosecutrix for the [ marricge with the prosecutrix; fe^ tow/irtff 2003 AIR SCW the ^-tfB^. XI-HC-22 sn^r'^i Pt-ii* an^t ^^ii^.'Hfsri ^g •a(raRp(;''s^teIre, fsaray wireirgr'nqi ^ 200 ^SS^t' ^ sn^r ^HiiwHf??! conssht t03S it was ar^ued 1+sat "the sexwsl intepcourse with J'he tipptiei^ consciously given and not in cbrisequ( facf. On these grounds, it was argu^ to show ths e^istehce of a c^ise unt '^r" ^cfe against the applicant; J On the otber hand, Shri D.1 Advocat'e+iasargued insupport of'fhj out thort Jn the first infopmatipn repo| that the sexycl intercourse comfflittt wgs without her consent dnd also Havrng heurd ths rival record of Sessions Trial No.4/2006.1 test for framing a charge against an produced by the prosecution if reveol +he existence of dn offence becharged. Applying tKe above touch-stone| the prosecutton, I am of ttie consici^ entir'e material produc^l by the. Cr.P.C. is aecepted at fts face value, disclose the eomrhissidn of offence '^1^Itrl4l'1 'RTR^f.'^'fS'^ '<:r3l^i<. '^sipgftsn^i of the prosecutrix iirthe pptiei^nt wce free, w?)untary;<ind snce of tiriy m!sconeeptk?n of j^d that there wos no mctterial - unjler Section 376 I.P.C. ^mw .K.Stjialre, learned &y. Soyernment i^ impughedorderandpbirrted •t The proseGutrix had stdted ^d by the applicarit With her an assurance of mcirriage. s, I have perused the 1 It is well settled thot the 1 Qccused is that the ffldterial On s face value would whioh the accused was t6 untlelr contelntions accebted unUer To the material pnsduced l?y )red opiriion that even if the pr^secution under. Section 173 |it does not «veri^nmff facw ur|dep Section 376 I,P,C. by the; l':*1! '\T:...SL- T^i r XI-HC-22 3I]^?[qCT R-<i*3TI^I 5fi+ilch •H^'O :^s,.-. 1.1 "5^cT ^1'41^1'if, ^Tll'y-'IG, flTHCfT Shlich 'WI. 200 fct*i<a" 311^1 ^RIIW Hf^I ge[d Sl^am anld applicant. The prosecutrix wce age| discretion. , I-ICF stntemenT undei revealed thfflt in fhe house at used to visit as a dance teaejlKr '•S[,: .1. baby-sitter,she fell ih;lpvewH-h th| sexual rela+ionship with hjn'. In h| mention that wl'ieh the applicant^ with her fpr the first time, it was by the applicgnt. The prosecutdx period^f two years dft'er sexiiat m^ applicant with her-. Even after' sh^ arid delivered a mate child on 28ft lodged after cbnstderable delay on] produced by the prosecution had fpeely, voluntarily and cdnsci^ intercourse with •t+ie applicahfc consequenceofany misconceptiono) Relying upon <Jday v. Stote\ cteaijly 103S, I am of the\sQnsidered vif gr'ound to proceed against the appl case undeF Seetion 376 I.P.C; sXit impugned order fraining ehai^e CM<)icl<ll^t^l<-IClf ^^f^Z^TfSf^R '^'N^SII^ 19 years and was a woman 6f ;t- Section 161 Cr.P.C.ydearly Ncgap where the qipljconf where she used toworkas.d ^ flSplicant and had estaBlished ^r statement, it does not find isttiblished sewjal relattonship {jnder on assurance of fflarriage did not (Qdge any peport for a (ercourse was first done by the eonceived from the applicant August^ZOOS, th& F.I.R. was 12;10.2ai5. Wus, tbe material shows that the prosecutrix nisly consented tq the sexual knd her- conssht was not in ^fact.,.,. • ' •-. ;:.: -:Y ,:.11.' lo^^tnKrtshr^OOS AIR SCW sw that there is n6 sufficient |cant/dccused as Wi prima facie |ts cgainst the applicant^ ^ The ut^der Sectton 376 I.P.C. against [tf^^f^l^ siiil 31it ^i^l :,'-'': .;^^^1 sa .n 0 .'Kg^^;a^^Nss g"^'r iegs^^a^^ XI-HC-22" '3~^ 'siTitRiq;1^ d^*|l|d," •factl'yy ••IK-IWI %WCR sniw^r Ti;-(i«t>'31I^I S0^)<ft ^^ I^B^I' the applicanT is, rhere-fons, per se assde. order dated Q4.Q1.2QQ6 passed by| Tudge, teipur Js set.oside. ;J^T»e.a^ .'--•.'•'.ff'-'. underSectton227Cr.P.C;" crit*iI<n*iTli ^rl^?if ^ fi^ <f^i-(-ri.i< .^sif-git ain^i . llegal and deserves TO be ser Inthe'rssult, the crimitK!l revtsion isallowed. The jmpugned the I41^ Additional SaSsions plicant/accused is discbarged •/. Sd-/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judse B:t