IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No.68 of 2008 (Sou. Meena w/o Sunil Tayade v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for Applicant. Shri D.B. Patel, APP for Non-Applicant. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 15th January, 2009 This revision is filed by the victim challening the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the non-applicant of offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 506 of the Penal Code. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. According to the prosecutrix, on 14-8-2005, she was asked by the accused to proceed towards her School where she was serving as Peon. She proceeded on her own vehicle, which stopped due to lack of petrol. Then she sat on the pillion seat of the motor cycle of the accused. The accused allegedly took her towards Aditya Hotel, from there he took to ST Stand, Amravati, from ST Stand he took her by ST bus to Shirdi, from Shirdi to Kopargaon, from Kopargaon to Itarsi, from Itarsi to Jabalpur, from Jabalpur to Balaghat, and from Balaghat to Shioni. Since the accused left her, she came to Nagpur and reported the matter to her husband. The learned Trial Judge held that the story is incredible, since the applicant had many opportunities of fleeing from the clutches of the accused and reporting the matter to the authorities, since had travelled from Bus Stations and Railway Station, which are public places. Therefore, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Judge is untenable or perverse. The revision application is rejected. Judge. pdl