STATE Vs. VIRENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment/order dated 21st October 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, thereby acquitting the respondent-accused from the charges framed under Section 366/376 of IPC.

(2.) Arguing the present application seeking leave to appeal, Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the prosecutrix was around 15 years of age on the date of incident and this factum is duly supported by the School Leaving Certificate proved on record by the prosecution and also by the deposition of the prosecutrix in particular. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that this important aspect was not taken into consideration by the learned trial court which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice in the present case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that during the course of making her statement, prosecutrix had also deposed that she was under constant intimidation from the accused and she got married to the accused only under pressure. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the alleged consensual sex had also taken place prior to the solemnisation of the alleged marriage of the prosecutrix with the accused.

(3.) We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and also given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them. We have also perused the impugned judgment and the trial court record.