IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 678 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 678 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 678 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2008 Rajesh Sitaram Padave ...Applicant (Orig.Accused No.1) vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.H.T. Pawar i/b. M/s.H.T. Pawar & Associates for the Applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 16, 2008 DATED : OCTOBER 16, 2008 DATED : OCTOBER 16, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376, 417, 384, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant had promised the prosectrix that he would marry her and thereafter, had sexual relations with her. On two occasions, the prosecutrix became pregnant and - 2 - her pregnancy was terminated. It is also the case of the prosecution that the applicant-accused obtained the School Leaving Certificate and other relevant documents from her and thereafter, threatened that if she marries other person, he would disclose this fact about their relations to the public at large. Therefore, a complaint was filed and chargesheet was filed and thereafter, he has been convicted. 4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecutrix was 21 years of age when the incident in question happened and therefore, the consensual sex between the parties and therefore, the trial court erred in convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 376. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kuamr Verma vs. State Pradeep Kuamr Verma vs. State Pradeep Kuamr Verma vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in AIR 2007 SC 3059. of Bihar & Anr., reported in AIR 2007 SC 3059. of Bihar & Anr., reported in AIR 2007 SC 3059. In the present case, in the cross-examination, it has been brought on record and the prosecutrix has admitted that before the applicant had sex with the prosecutrix for the first time, he did not give promise to marry her. He submitted that this fact had not been mentioned by - 3 - her before the police. Further it was not stated before the police that the applicant had obtained certificates from her and had threatened her that she should not marry anyone else. She has further stated that she was unwilling to marry the applicant. In view of all these admissions which are given by the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that the mis-representation was made by the applicant that he was willing to marry prosecutrix. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 5. The applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to Khed Police Station once in a month. 6. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)