{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2014 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Sandeep Ramrao Gore & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 18th November 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application filed by the State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of Ad Hoc Additional District Judge-1, Nanded dated 25.02.2010, rendered in Special Case No. 14/2007 acquitting the respondents for an offence punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 (1) (xi) and (xii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It appears that the prosecutorix, who was major and was older to accused No.1, alleged that on 14.01.2005 accused No.1 had committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will. In respect of the incident dated 14.01.2005 a report was filed in the year 2007 {2} i.e. after expiry of a period of two years. However, during the period of two years the prosecutorix and accused No.1 appear to have been engaged in illicit relations and had gone to Tirupati Balaji temple to pay obeisance and the arrangement for booking etc. were done by the prosecutorix. The trial court, upon the appreciation of the evidence, found that the prosecutorix was a willing partner and, therefore, the sexual intercourse have not been performed against her will. 2. This Court had dismissed the present application as against respondents No.2 to 4. We are, therefore, considering the nature of evidence available against respondent No.1. In the light of the facts narrated above, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the trial court that it was a case of consent and it was not a case of forcible sexual intercourse. In any event, the view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Accordingly, this application, being sans merits, is dismissed. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln2014-10 {3} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.127 OF 2010 Radha d/o Pundlikrao Gaware APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.N.Chitlange, Advocate for the applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 18th November 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is a criminal revision application filed by the applicant / prosecutorix questioning the correctness of the findings of the trial court acquitting the respondents in Special Case No.14/2007. In the light of the dismissal of the State Appeal, this revision application is also required to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln2014-10