IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2795 OF 2009. State of Maharashtra. ... APPLICANT. VERSUS 1 Dastgir s/o Shabbirsab Sayyad (absconded) and two others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. applicant. Shri S.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for R.Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 26th APRIL, 2010. PER COURT: 1. We heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Godbharle for the applicant State and learned Counsel Mr. Sakolkar for the respondents No.2 and 3. We have not issued notice to respondent No.1 because the learned A.P.P. submitted that accused No.1 was not tried before the learned Sessions Judge since he was absconding. The Respondents No.2 and 3 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.6 of 2007. They were accused Nos.2 and 3. The relation between the respondents No.2 and 3 as husband and wife is not disputed before us. 2. The victim Lailabee in the case at hand, lodged report on 15th August, 2006. According to her, she was not 18 years old when her marriage was solemnized on 27th April, 2006 with accused No.1. The victim and her parents were not ready for such marriage of victim with accused no.1. The Respondents No.2 and 3 were instrumental for the marriage of victim with accused No.1. According to victim, her parents were having 8 daughters and two sons. They had arranged marriage of their another daughter Dilshadbee. All of sudden, proposal was moved by respondents No.2 and 3 for marriage of victim with accused no.1. Parents of the victim refused. They were not financially sound for bearing expenses of two marriages at one time. Respondent No.2 took the responsibility of bearing expenses of clothes for both, bride and bridegroom. For that purpose, he showed willingness to pay Rs.5000/-. Because of this act of respondents No.2 and 3, marriage of victim was decided to be solemnized with accused No. 1. Accordingly, 2 – 3 days after the marriage of Dilshadbee, sister of present victim, marriage of the victim was solemnized with accused No.1. Prosecution had stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 are resident of village Anandwadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. As against this, accused No.1 is not resident of Latur district. It appears from the evidence on record that he was residing at Mumbai. Significantly, after the marriage of victim with accused No.1, both of them had been to the house of respondent No.2 at village Anandwadi. According to the prosecution, after 3 – 4 days of marriage, accused No.1 started ill-treating the victim. The date of incident is 11th July, 2006. Allegation made by the victim is of cauterisation. Specific allegation made by the victim is of actual cautery. 3. We have considered the nature of allegations made by the victim. Mr. Sakolkar, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 took us through the relevant portion of the judgment of trial Court. The trial Court acquitted respondents No.2 and 3 principally on two grounds. First, the date of occurrence is July 11, 2006 however, the victim lodged the F.I.R. on 15th August, 2006. According to Mr. Sakolkar there is no convincing explanation for this delay. Second ground considered by the trial Court for acquittal of the respondents no.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 366-A, 347, 326 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, is the age of the victim. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence – oral and documentary. According to the prosecution, date of birth of victim is 4th June, 1991. For this purpose, documentary evidence is brought on record. P.W.5 Shaikh Kasim is examined. The trial Judge did not accept this evidence as genuine and according to him, this evidence cannot be conclusive on the point of date of birth of the victim. With the assistance of the Counsel for the parties, we have perused the evidence of victim Lailabee, mother of the victim P.W.3 Ashabee, p.w.5 Shaikh Kasim, Head Master of the School and P.W.8 Dr. Shinde. We have also considered the material brought on record on behalf of the prosecution, especially in relation to injuries alleged to have been caused to the victim. After considering totality of the circumstances and the material brought on record, in our view, case for grant of leave against the respondents No.2 and 3 is established. 4. Criminal Application is allowed. Leave under Section 378(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. stands granted against respondent Nos.2 and 3. Application does not seek any relief against respondent No.1. We direct action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Latur shall secure presence of accused Nos.2 and 3 on quarterly basis. With this now, we see no reason to keep this Criminal Application pending. Criminal Application is accordingly allowed in above terms and disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE ] [ S.B. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE JUDGE Kadam/*