AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned Counsel for the State in Acquittal Appeal No. 4 of 2010 and Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned Sr. counsel for the Petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 303 of 2009. Both assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal on various grounds.
Heard the parties in detail.
Perused the records.
In our opinion, the learned court below has rightly acquitted the accused persons after considering the materials on record and the judgment placed before it.
The learned court below has inter alia observed as follows:
From the laws laid down in above referred cases, it appears that the law has now settled that whether a women is mature enough to understand the morality and consequence of the act i.e. sexual intercourse, if believing of any promise given by accused remained indulged in sexual activity for a long period like two years or so like in present case, it can not be said that there had been no consent on the part of women or same has been obtained under misconception of fact. Therefore, in the light of evidence which is clear from the prosecutrix herself as well as from her mother and sister, it appears that there had been regular and continuous sexual relation with the accused Dasrath Mondal, this amounts consent on the part of the women and, therefore, offence of rape is certainly not made out in the present case.
It further held that: even taking that it was a marriage performed by accused then there is no question of deceitfully causing the victim to believe that she was legally married. Marriage may be legal or illegal but certainly Phulmani was doing the marriage with accused at Shivmandir mean she was aware that Dasrath Mondal was performing marriage with her. Anyway, ingredients of offence u/s 493 IPC are not fulfilled and established by evidence in this case. Therefore, I am of the view that offence u/s 493 IPC is not made out. As per the allegation, certain compromise was entered into between the parties but no chit of paper has been produced in this case which further doubts the prosecution case.
Similar charges under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was also found not proved.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, Both Acquittal Appeal and Cr. Revision are dismissed.
It goes without saying that any of the dispute between the parties will not be prejudiced by this order.