AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2516 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant Vs. Rajpal Ramkumar Singh ... Respondent Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 14TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged judgment and order dated 19/1/2010 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.178 of 2008. The respondent was charged for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). By the impugned judgment and order, the respondent has been acquitted. AJN 2 2. We have heard, at some length, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. It appears that the prosecutrix was earlier married to one Ashok Pawar. She had a daughter from him. She came to know that he is a married person and, therefore, she left him and started working as a maid. According to the prosecutrix, the respondent was working with Caterer – Babubhai. He met her in the year 1997. The respondent used to play with her daughter and, some intimacy developed between the the respondent and the prosecutrix. He told her that he would take care of her daughter and pursuant to that assurance, they had physical relations. The case of the prosecutrix further is that the respondent promised to marry her. Subsequently, she got pregnant. Thereafter, the respondent left her. She took shelter in Ananth Ashram at Worli. She delivered a child and, after birth of her son, the respondent came back and they started residing together. The respondent advised her to keep the children in Ananth Ashram and told her that they will get married thereafter. She accordingly kept her children in Ananth Ashram. Till 2004, they resided together AJN 3 at Dharavi. However, the respondent did not keep his promise. He, however, kept on having physical relations with her till January, 2007. One day he refused to marry her. Therefore, she filed a complaint on 15/6/2007. 3. From the evidence of the prosecutrix, it appears that the prosecutrix knew the respondent since 1997. She stayed with him for more than 7 years. She had sexual relations with the respondent from 1997 till 2007 i.e. till she lodged the complaint. She claims that she had a son from the respondent. According to the prosecutrix, all these years, the respondent promised to marry her, but he did not keep his promise. 4. The prosecution has failed to prove this case. It is difficult to understand why the prosecutrix did not lodge a complaint earlier. If the respondent had repeatedly promised to marry her and had not kept the promise, the prosecutrix should have approached the police earlier. It appears that the prosecutrix willingly stayed with the AJN 4 respondent and consented to sexual intercourse. Apart from the evidence of the prosecutrix, the prosecution has not led any evidence to establish that the respondent had promised to marry the prosecutrix. We find it difficult to place implicit reliance on the evidence of the prosecutrix and hold that the respondent committed breach of promise to marry and forced the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with him. The trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent. The view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view. Hence, leave refused. Application is dismissed. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]