1 cri­apln­5133­10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLICATION NO. 5133 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Chandrakant Yashwant Hindole ..Respondent .... Mrs. A.S.Pai Additional Public Prosecutor for the State .... CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 01, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur whereby the respondent came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 We have considered the contentions canvassed by the Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the judgment impugned. The relevant findings given by the trial Court in paragraph 10 and 16 of 2 cri­apln­5133­10 the judgment, read thus: “ 10 As has come on record prosecutrix was not alone when accused took her with him. Her friend namely Shital was also with her. It cannot be believed that on the main village road and in the day time any person can ask any girl to accompany him under the threat, more particularly when the said girl is also accompanied by her friend. As has further come on record all 3 i.e. accused, prosecutrix and her friend Shital sat on the motor cycle of the accused and went to Islampur. It cannot be accepted that accused would have taken with him the prosecutrix as well as her friend on a motor cycle under the threat or coercion. Had the prosecutrix, really not willing to go along with the accused, there were ample opportunities for her to get escaped from the custody of the accused and to resist him from taking her away. She could have given alarms also as she was being taken by the accused on his motor cycle not from any lonely road or in the night hours. 16 From the evidence which has come on record, it is no where revealed that the accused had played any active role in taking away the prosecutrix with him. There is further 3 cri­apln­5133­10 no evidence showing that the accused has in the entire said period of 12 days prevented the prosecutrix from contacting her parents or for making any grievance against him for bringing her with him without her consent. The prosecution has thus, failed in proving that the accused kidnapped the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her parents. ” 3 The above referred findings which are based on the prosecution evidence, in our view, clearly demonstrates that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences charged and therefore, no case is made out for showing indulgence in the present appeal. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. [ D.D.SINHA, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]