mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2498 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. APPLICANT Vs. RAHUL JAGDISH VYAVAHARE .. RESPONDENT Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: 12/7/2010 P.C. The State of Maharashtra has challenged judgment and order dated 13/6/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2008 acquitting of the respondent of the offences punishable under Section 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard learned APP at some length. In our opinion, the impugned order does not merit any interference. 3. We notice that the prosecutrix has admitted that she was in 11th Standard in the year 2001 and in the year 2003 she has taken admission in F.Y. B. Com. Therefore, the finding recorded by learned Sessions Judge that the prosecutrix was a major when the offence took place, appears to us to be unassailable. 4. According to the prosecutrix she fell in love with the accused in the year 2002. She claims that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her at Gadhinglaj. According to her the accused had promised to marry her. She has stated that the accused went to Kolhapur for his job in 2004 and at that time she also went to Kolhapur for her job. In Kolhapur she was staying in her friend’s house. She claims the accused had forcible intercourse with her in her friend’s house. It must be stated here that the prosecutrix’s friend has not supported this case. 5. According to the prosecutrix in the year 2005 she became pregnant. The accused insisted that she should terminate the pregnancy. He promised to marry her after two months. Hence she terminated the pregnancy. But the accused did not marry her. Her case is that the accused kept on promising her that he would marry her but he did not keep his promise. He took her to Hotel Vinod at Ajra and there he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. In January or February 2008 he again promised to marry her. In March, 2008, he declined to marry her and hence she filed a complaint. 4. In our opinion, the evidence of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. She claims that she had physical relations with the accused from 2002 to 2008. She willingly went to Kolhapur when the accused went there for a job. She even conceived a child in 2005 but she terminated the pregnancy. If the accused was allegedly promising to marry her all these years and was not marrying her she should have lodged complaint earlier. On the contrary she appears to have gone and stayed in hotels with him. Apart from her evidence there is no other evidence to establish that the accused had promised to marry her. We find it extremely risky to place implicit reliance on the prosecutrix’s evidence and hold against the accused. Morever learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the prosecutrix was a major. In our opinion, therefore, learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused. The view taken by learned Sessions Judge is a reasonably possible view which cannot be interfered in this appeal against acquittal. No case is made out for interference with the impugned judgment and order. 4. Leave refused. Application is dismissed. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)