V.G.PALSHIKAR,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1988 on 30th November 1988.
(2.) IN this case the accused was prosecuted for committing offences under sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. Facts in brief are that the accused was friendly with the prosecutrix Fatima and therefore with her consent they eloped to Bombay from Akkalkot. A complaint with police was lodged by the parents of Fatima. Search for Fatima went on the ultimately about a month and half she was found in Bombay with the accused. She was taken back to Solapur and medically examined. After completion of investigation the accused was arrested and prosecuted as aforesaid. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the offences and he therefore proceeded to acquit the accused. Feeling aggrieved by such acquittal the State has come up with this appeal. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent. We have scrutinised the record, and re-appreciated the evidence which was appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge while ordering acquittal. P.W.1 is the grand mother of prosecutrix Fatima. She describes what happened on that day and how Fatima told a lie to her and went away. She does not say anything about Fatima stating her about the accused or Fatima and about their sexual relationship. The witness is of no consequence.
(3.) P .W.2 Sumanlal stated that he know both the accused and the prosecutrix. They worked on his construction site for a period of one month. He identified both the persons and stated that he had no other knowledge about their relationship. He therefore proved the fact that for one month the accused and the prosecutrix stayed together at the construction side at Bombay. His evidence is also of no consequence.;