1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1499 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Vijaya @ Vijayalaxmi Ranjeetsingh ..Respondents Dadwal & anr Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P, for the State None for the respondents CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2008 P.C. . Heard. 2. The accused were facing trial of the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366(A), 368, 342, 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and by the Judgment dated 27th February, 2008, 2nd Ad-Hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Greater Bombay on analysis of the evidence adduced before him acquitted them for the above offences. 2 3. The date of birth of the victims referred in the F.I.R and even in the document is 21st September, 1987 and in another document it is referred as 21st September, 1988. Apparently they were aged about 17 to 18 years at the material time. The victims before leaving for Mumbai carried their bags with their apparels and requisite material. According to the victims, they were assured by the accused persons to provide work as a Junior Artist in some films and Telefilms and they went with the accused in Volvo bus. It is pertinent that the parents of the victims were aware that they were moving for Bangalore. There is nothing to suggest that the victim girls were enticed by the accused. The evidence that they were subjected to sexual intercourse with unknown persons at Bangalore is not satisfactorily established as observed by the learned 2nd Ad-Hoc Assistant Sessions Judge. The victims had several opportunities to rebel against action of the accused persons while travelling from Mumbai to Bangalore or while remaining at the Hotel at Bangalore or while moving for several purchases. 3 It is apparent that the victims roam easily without any fear even without any other aspect. It is apparent that there were controversies between the victims and the accused on account of their moving from Mumbai to Bangalore. In the set of above facts, the findings recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge need not be interferred. Hence, Leave to appeal is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)