IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.302 of 2008. The State of Rajasthan VERSUS Sudama @ Rahul son of Shir Hari Shanker Panchal. Date of Order :::: 25/02/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan Ms. Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Jitendra Singh Tanwar, Counsel for the respondent BY THE COURT : The State has preferred this leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Women Atrocity & Dowry Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the accused Sudama @ Rahul was acquitted from the offence under Sections 363, 366 of the I.P.C. Notice was issued to the accused-respondent. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix against 10- persons with the averments that his minor daughter viz. Poonam, Student of 12th Class, is missing, since 06.03.2006 on which date, she went for giving her final examination of the Board, but she did not return. Later- on, it was found that accused had taken away her forcefully by descents and married his minor daughter. Rests of the accused also helped in getting the said marriage. The Police after investigation submitted challan against accused Sudama @ Rahul only. The accused claimed trial and denied the charges levelled against him. The prosecution produced as many as 21- witnesses in support of its case. The trial Court after giving detail judgment come to a conclusion that the prosecutrix was above 16- years of age at the time of commission of offence and was a consenting party. As per documents and the statements of the prosecution, no prima facie, case is made out against the accused-respondent. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. During investigation, statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein she has narrated that there was no any force or abduction, which was done by the accused- respondent and rape was also not committed with her. In the cross examination before the trial Court she has also admitted about the version given and the letters written by her. The accused has also produced the love letters written by the prosecutrix (Exhibit 13 to Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 22 to Exhibit 32). The prosecutrix also filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Delhi against her father for restraining him not to merry her with anybody else, as she has already married with the accused in Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamur Nagar, Delhi-6, but no such certificate of marriage was produced before the trial Court, but the affidavit, Exhibit D-22 has been submitted, which reveals that she has solemnized marriage with accused. The school certificate, Exhibit P-8 clearly reveals that her date of birth is 06.02.1990. All the documents, along with the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court reveal that she was a consenting party and no offence of abduction was committed by the accused. The trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion about this aspect, after going through the every detail of the prosecution evidence and while doing so the trial Court reached at correct conclusion. There is no illegality or irregularity nor any prima-facie ground exists, which requires interference by this Court in the judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the leave to appeal is rejected, and leave is refused. (Bhanwaroo Khan) J. ashok/