- (1.)Heard on the question of admission. This miscellaneous criminal case has been filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar in Sessions Case No. 377/2009, whereby acquitting the respondent/accused for the commission of the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)In short, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix (PW-5) went to school on 24.06.2009 at 09.00 AM; when she did not return up to 04.00 PM, her family members started her search, but she was not found. Missing person report was lodged at Police Chowki, Rajgarh. After investigation, the Police recorded a report under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. During further investigation, the Police found the prosecutrix in the custody of the appellant. Her statement was recorded and she was medically examined. Medical examination of the appellant was also conducted. After completion of the investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet against the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, held the prosecutrix to be a major, on the basis of the ossification report Ex. D/22 and the evidence of Dr. B.R. Bansal. The trial Court did not rely on the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was a minor as there was no cogent and reliable evidence about her date of birth. The trial Court also found that the prosecutrix had gone at her own with the appellant and remained in his company for a long duration willingly and had visited various villages and cities during this period. It held that in spite of ample opportunity to make complaint about alleged offence being committed upon her by the appellant, she did not tell anybody. Keeping in view these circumstances, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Having held so, the trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charges levelled against him.
(3.)We have gone through the evidence and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court and find no ground to take a different view. In the circumstances, this miscellaneous criminal case seeking leave to appeal, deserves to be and is hereby rejected.