APPLN. 568-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 568 OF 2011 State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Vs. Uday Chandrakant Khade ... Respondent *** Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, APP for the Applicant. *** CORAM :V. M. KANADE, : A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 16, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned APP appearing on behalf of the applicant/State. The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. 2. The brief facts are as under- . The respondent/accused was charged for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366-A of the I.P. Code. The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix was a minor girl and was studying in the 11th standard and was also attending the APPLN. 568-11 - 2 - sewing class. It is alleged that she did not return home on 17th March, 2008 and her father filed a complaint that she was missing from that date. After about 10-12 days, her father received a telephonic message that his daughter and a boy were brought to the police station. Accordingly, he went to the police station. According to the prosecution, accused had taken the prosecutrix Sheetal to Radhanagari, Islampur by ST bus and had promised to marry with her and had committed forcible intercourse with her. According to the prosecutrix, she refused to go with her parents and therefore, she was kept in a Remand Home. The offences under Section 363 and 366-A of I.P.C. were registered against the accused. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and a charge was framed against the accused for the said offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution thereafter examined 11 witnesses. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not established that the minor prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused and therefore, acquitted the respondent/ accused of the offences with which he was charged. 3. The learned APP appearing for the applicant/State has taken us to the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. APPLN. 568-11 - 3 - In our view, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. The records and proceedings were called and has been received by this Court. It is a settled position in law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., this Court should not normally interfere with the judgment of the trial court, whenever two possible views are possible; this Court should not substitute its own view to the view taken by the trial court, unless it is shown that the finding recorded by the trial court is perverse or is not bourne out from the record. 4. So far as the offences punishable under Section 363 and 366-A of the I.P. Code are concerned, it has to be established that the accused had enticed the minor girl by giving her a false promise. The trial court has observed that there is no material on record to show that she was enticed by the respondent/accused. On the other hand, the court has observed that from the record it appears that accused had allowed the prosecutrix to accompany him. Further perusal of the record indicates that prosecution has not established that the accused was not willing to marry her at any point of time. This being the position, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established that accused had committed the offences punishable under Section 363 and APPLN. 568-11 - 4 - 366-A of the I.P.C. It is, therefore, not possible to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial court. The trial court has considered the evidence at length and has given cogent reasons while coming to the conclusion that prosecution has not established its case against the respondent. The trial court has also taken into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court on this point and has rightly, in our view, acquitted the accused. The leave to appeal, therefore, is not granted. Criminal Application is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [ A. M. THIPSAY, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]