LATA BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision preferred under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') by the informant, the assail is to the judgment of acquittal dated 29-7-2002 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the petitioner as prosecutrix set the criminal law in motion, as a result of which the accused/respondent No. 2 was charged under Sections 376 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC ). It appears that the prosecutrix was a major and she lodged an FIR after the expiry of seven months of pregnancy. The learned Trial Judge took note of various facts including the consent given by the prosecutrix and the delay in lodging the FIR and eventually recorded the order of acquittal.

(2.) CRITICIZING the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted by Mr. K. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner that she became a victim of circumstances inasmuch as the accused had allured her with a marriage proposal and, therefore, it can not be construed as consent and hence the approach of the learned Trial Judge paves the path of vitiation and deserves to be interfered requiring re-trial.

(3.) TO appreciate the aforesaid statement of Mr. K. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, we have carefully scanned the judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge. It is manifest that on 12-5-2001 the accused had entered into the house and had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and had pressurised her not to publicize the same as he was going to marry her. There is material on record that this relationship continued for considerable length of time and eventually the petitioner became pregnant. Judged from any angle or spectrum, it can not be said that there was any kind of resistance by the petitioner. In the case of Uday v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639, a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Paragraph 21 has held as under:-"