1 cri appln 1776.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1776 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Dattatraya Ganpatrao Raut and ors. .. Respondents Shri N. R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Shri S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri G. P. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 5. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondents. The learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the contents of the complaint and also the discussion of the Trial Court in para 22 of the impugned judgment and submitted that, the Trial Court though accepted the case of the prosecution, erroneously held that, the age of the complainant/girl was between 17 to 18 years and prosecution has failed to prove its case. According to learned A.P.P. it is 2 cri appln 1776.10 immaterial whether her age is 13, 15 or 17 years, but what is relevant is that the marriage is performed against the will and wish of the girl. The trial Court is duty bound to consider the documents and evidence on record. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. would submit that, the application requires consideration. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the marriage and also the Sessions Court has drawn the reasonable inference about the age of complainant and after proper appreciation of evidence has taken possible view. Therefore, this Court may reject the application seeking leave against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Beed. 3. Upon hearing learned A.P.P. appearing for the applicant/State and learned counsel appearing for respondents, the case in hand is of serious nature. The complainant who claims to be miner on the relevant date on which alleged marriage was forcibly performed. Her age was 12 years. There are specific allegations in the complaint and even, if it is assumed for a moment that the complainant was of 17 to 18 years on the relevant date, till the question remains that, whether 3 cri appln 1776.10 marriage can be performed against the will and wish of the girl. Looking to the reason assigned by the Trial Court, in my opinion, prima facie, it appears that, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record. The case is made out to grant leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Beed, dated 13.01.2010 in Sessions Case No. 100/2008. Hence the application is allowed. The leave to file appeal is granted. Registry is directed to register this application as appeal. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 11