HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.954 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner- defacto complainant against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru, in S.C.No.552 of 2001, vide judgment dated 08.11.2004 whereby and whereunder the 2nd respondent-accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 448 and 313 IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, P.W.2, aged about 15 years, is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3 and victim in this case. The accused and P.W.2 belong to the same caste and residents of one and the same village and locality. While so, the accused developed friendship with her during the period of their cooli work and also having developed and evil eye over her, started visiting her house. While the matter stood thus, on 04.07.2000 at about 8.00 p.m. the accused taking advantage of the loneliness of P.W.2 went into her house and expressed his desire to have sexual intercourse with her and later forcibly committed rape on her and subsequent thereto he continued the sexual acts with her. During the month of December, 2000, on noticing P.W.2 suffering with vomitings, her parents took her to a private hospital and the doctor examined her and confirmed that she is pregnant. On coming to know about the incident, whenher parents went to the house of the accused and questioned, he expressed his willingness to marry P.W.2. Believing in his words, parents of P.W.2 got her pregnancy terminated. Thereafter, when the parents of P.W.2 insisted the accused to marry her daughter, the accused is postponing the same on one pretext or other and ultimately denied. 3. Heard both sides and perused the impugned judgment. 4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the accused holding that though it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 is 15 years old at the time of the incident, there is no documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the same. In the absence of establishing the age of P.W.2 coupled with the fact that P.W.2 is a consenting party, the question of convicting the accused under section 376 IPC does not arise. Hence, I am of the opinion that the concurrent findings given by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against him cannot be interfered with and the said judgment does not suffer with any infirmity or perversity and there is no apparent error on the face of the record also. 5. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 9th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.954 OF 2005 DATE: 09.12.2010 Between : M. Mukunda Rao … Petitioner/ Defacto complainant and State of A.P. and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.954 of 2005 (Dismissed) 9th December, 2010 cbs