1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 682 of 2011 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2011 [State of Mah. Vs. Pankaj Dayaram Urade] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.S. Nayak, APP for applicant-State. ----- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 18th November, 2011. 1. This is an application filed by the applicant-State questioning the correctness of the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, dated 4th July, 2011 in Sessions Case No. 161 of 2009 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that on the basis of the report lodged by PW 1 - the victim, at Exh.57 on 16th August, 2009, complaining therein that the accused had performed sexual intercourse against 2 her will, the prosecution was set into motion. 3. During the trial, prosecution has examined PW 1 - victim, who, in no uncertain terms, admitted that she was employed as a police constable, and was having affair with the respondent-accused since about three years prior to the lodging of the report. It further transpires from the evidence that she had conceived some time in the month of May, 2009, and on being apprised of her conception, the respondent-accused had promised to marry her. It further appears that a report came to be lodged when the victim learnt about the marriage of the respondent-accused. 4. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that since the victim PW 1 was major, and had consented for the sexual intercourse, it could not be said that the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by the respondent-accused was against her will and consent. 5. We have heard learned APP, with whose assistance, we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as we have perused the copies of the depositions of the witnesses. Upon such perusal, according to us, the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We, thus, see no perversity in the reasoning of the Trial court to warrant any 3 interference in this appeal against acquittal. 6. Accordingly, there being no merit in the present application, this application is dismissed. Leave stands refused. Judge Judge |Hedau|