AMARESHWAR SAHAY,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is the informant, has challenged the judgment dated 26.5.2005 (sic) of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Courts) Jamtara, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused Lakhikant Mandal from the charges under Section 376, IPC holding that no offence of rape as defined under Section 375, IPC is made out. From perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution the learned trial Court held that the cohabitation was with the consent of the prosecutrix as it was apparent from the evidence that she was pregnant and on the alleged date of occurrence she was having 8 to 9 months pregnancy.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the consent, if any, of the prosecutrix was on the belief that she was legally wedded wife of the accused and, therefore, the said consent of intercourse was misconception of fact which comes under clause 4 of Section 375 of the IPC.;