A.G.URAIZEE - (1.) The present application under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking leave to Appeal, is preferred by the State to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.1.3018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the respondent accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 294(Kh) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P. Code').
(2.) Brief facts of the present case are as under : It is the case of the prosecution that present respondent induced and enticed away victim complainant by giving false promise of marriage and thereby committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter turned from his promise given to victim and refuse to get marry with her. According to prosecution case, victim complainant and accused, both were studying at Bangalore and accordingly they came in contract with each other and as both of them are resident of city of Ahmedabad, subsequently they were meeting with each other. According to prosecution case, respondent accused met with an accident and at that time victim has given financial assistance to accused. According to prosecution case, in 2011, respondent has gone at Delhi for official work and at that time also victim complainant was taken at Delhi with him and stayed in hotel for three days situated on VIP Road, near Hanumanji Mandir and during that stay, accused person has made demand of sexual intercourse, which was denied by victim on the ground that they are not married, but accused person gave false promise of marriage and thenafter committed sexual intercourse with her. According to prosecution case, victim complainant was serving with Jivraj Mehta Hospital and therefore, after finishing her duty, while she was going at home, accused person was taking her in open ground near Divyabhashkar Press, S.G. Highway, where she was sexually enjoyed by accused, but thereafter as per promise given by respondent, he was not ready to get marry with her and accordingly on 16.4.2013, victim complainant along with her sister Stella, both had gone at the house of accused and asked about willingness of accused, whether he is ready to marry with her or not and at that time also accused person has refused to get marry with her and gave filthy abuses to victim complainant and administered threat to cause death. Therefore, on 29.4.2013, victim complainant lodged complaint before police station, which was registered at CR No. I-94/2013 for the offences under Sec. 376, 294(B), 506(1) of IPC and investigation machinery put into motion.
(3.) We have heard Mr. J.K. Shah, learned APP for the State. Mr. Shah, learned APP vehemently submitted that prosecutrix has consistently stated in her statement before the Police and in her oral evidence on oath before the Court that she had accompanied the respondent accused to Delhi, where they stayed in hotel and shared the same room. She has further stated in her evidence that the respondent accused asked her to have sexual favour, to which, she declined as they had not married so far. While however, the respondent accused induced and enticed her to have sexual relationship on the ground that soon they were going to get marry and there is no harm. Mr. Shah, learned APP vehemently submitted that there are no material worth the name in evidence of prosecutrix and her statement before the police, which would discredit the prosecutrix and therefore, the learned trial Judge has fall in error in acquitting the respondent accused on the ground that having sex on promise of getting marry is not covered under Section 376 of the I.P. Code, therefore, urges that present application be allowed and leave may be granted to question the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned trial Judge.;