APPLN. 921-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 921 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Vs. Ramesh V. Manur @ Pyara ... Respondent *** Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Applicant. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 PC: 1. The applicant State has filed this application for leave to file appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 904 of 2009 whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent herein of the offences punishable under Section 376, 457 and 506 of the I. P. Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix was sleeping in her tin shed along with her sister and at about 2.00 a.m. the respondent/accused came to her tin shed and entered and took her to his tin shed and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her, at which point of time, the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix came there and rescued the prosecutrix and a complaint was thereafter lodged against the respondent/accused; charge-sheet was filed. The trial court APPLN. 921-11 - 2 - framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable under section 376, 457 and 506 of the I. P. Code. The trial court, however, held that prosecution had not established that the prosecutrix was below age of 16 years of age. It had further held that offence under Section 376 of I. P. Code was not established since the prosecutrix in her evidence had stated that she was having love affairs with the respondent/accused for about 3-4 years. 3. We have, with the assistance of the learned APP, perused the impugned judgment and order and also gone through the notes of evidence which are annexed with the application for leave to file appeal. It has come on record that the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix had stated that she is more than 18 years of age when the incident took place and he wanted to produce the birth certificate. However, the prosecution did not allow him to produce that certificate. The trial court has also observed that during pendency of the case, the respondent and the prosecutrix got married and now they are residing as husband and wife. The prosecution also in her evidence has clearly stated that she was having a love affair and that she had given her consent, and therefore, the trial Court, in our view, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish their case against the respondent against the respondent. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. Leave to file appeal is, therefore, refused. [ A. M. THIPSAY, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]