: 1 : APPLN-758-11 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.758 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Sagari Police Station, Jaigad, Tal. & Dist. Ratnagiri ... Applicant V/s. Mahavir Haribahaddur Thapa @ Rokaya @ Lucky ... Respondent/ Accused Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP, for the Applicant-State. None for the Respondent. CORAM: V.M. KANADE & A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Smt. V.R. Bhosale, the learned APP, for the Applicant-State. 2. The Applicant-State has filed this Criminal Application for leave to file Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 15th April, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No.27 of 2010. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the Respondent/Accused of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the Respondent/Accused was 19 years old and the prosecutrix was 15 years old when the Respondent/Accused took her to the State of Uttaranchal. On a complaint being filed by the parents of : 2 : APPLN-758-11 the prosecutrix, the Respondent/Accused was arrested and a Charge-Sheet was filed against him for the said offences. The trial Court has held that the prosecution has not established that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. Further, the Sessions Court has observed that the prosecutrix, in her evidence, had stated that she had developed a love affair with the Respondent/Accused, and she had insisted that the Respondent/Accused should marry her, and the Respondent-Accused, in fact, was not ready to marry her since she was a minor. The Sessions Court also observed that, in her evidence, the prosecutrix had stated that she had left her parents’ house on her own accord and had returned after one month along with the Respondent/Accused. 4. In our view, taking into consideration the said observations, which are made by the Sessions Court, this is not a fit case for grant of leave. Leave, accordingly, is refused. 5. The Criminal Application is disposed of. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)