- (1.) HEARD learned A.G.A. and perused the lower court record.
(2.) THIS application for granting the leave to appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ex -Cadre in S.T. No. 29 of 2012 whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 363,366 and 376 I.P.C.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the record and impugned judgement it reveals that in the present case the FIR has been lodged by Jagatveer on 1.11.2011 at 3.30 p.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 5.10.2011 at about 3.00 p.m. The prosecutrix has been recovered on 21.11.2011 she was medically examined on 21.11.2011, according to the medical examination report no injury was seen on her person and no definite opinion of rape could be given, she was aged about 19 years, her statement under section 164 Cr.PC. has been recorded on 21.11.2011 in which she has disclosed her age? 16 years but she stated that she was studying in B.A. Class. According to her statement she had gone in the company of the accused respondent, she developed physical relationship with him with her consent, she has not performed the marriage with the accused respondent. Her statement has been recorded before the trial court as P.W. 5 in which she stated that she was raped forcibly by the accused respondent. She had made allegation against Tulsi Ram also but Tulsi Ram has not been charge sheeted. From the side of the defence High School Marksheet of the prosecutrix has been filed in which her date of birth has been shown as 7.10.1993. The proseuctirx herself has admitted before the trial court the date of birth was of the year 1992 or 1993 and she stated that her date of birth is 19.8.1992. The trial court has acquitted the accused respondent on the ground that the prosecutrix was major and she was a consenting party. We have carefully considered the deposition of P.W. 5 and her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. including the other evidence, we are of the view that trial court has taken the view that prosecutrix was a consenting party, but subsequently, she changed her version at the stage of the trial. The finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court does not require any interference by this court because the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. Therefore, the prayer for granting the leave to appeal is refused.;