1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.2153 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra. .. .. Applicant. vs. Vinod Namdeo Kamble. .. .. Respondent. Mr U.V.Nikam, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J. DATE : 1st July,2009. P.C.:- It is the application of leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal arising out of the prosecution under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard the learned A.P.P. for some time. Perused the record and the reasoning given by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused and it is being decided at the stage of admission itself without there being any notice to the respondent-accused. 2. Apparently, it does not appear the case of rape but by consensual sexual intercourse and considering the same 2 the Trial Court had acquitted the accused. The prosecutrix is 32 years old, grown up woman having four children and knowing the accused since long and was well acquainted with him and visits of the accused to the house of prosecutrix were not liked by her husband P.W.No.2. Medical evidence and C.A.,reports are not incriminating. The alleged incident occurred at about 10.00 p.m.,in the house of the prosecutrix. Said house situate in crowded locality. Allegedly, the accused entered the house of prosecutrix and had sexual intercourse with her by over powering her. Her husband P.W.No.2 came home on that night and saw the accused indulged in such an act. He tried to apprehend the accused but the accused ran away. Thereafter, according to the substantive evidence of P.W.No.1 prosecutrix her husband enquired with her as to for what purpose the accused had come to their house and why he ran away. This question of P.W.No.2 was taken by the Trial Court as to the story of P.W.No.2 seeing the accused indulging in the act with his wife seems improbable. According to P.W.No.1 prosecutrix after the accused left her house, her husband assaulted her on account of presence of the accused and is running away at that odd hours. Admittedly, the F.I.R., was lodged after three days and the accused was arrested after seven days. 3. Considering the above circumstances, in the opinion 3 of this Court, there is nothing to allow the present leave petition so as to deal with the matter in the appeal before this Court. Hence, the present leave petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. A.R.JOSHI,J.