1. State seeks leave to file appeal against a judgment dated
04.01.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case
No.172/2011 arising out of FIR No.208/2011 under Section 376 IPC PS
Chhawla by which the respondent was acquitted of the charge. Petition is
contested by the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that the Trial
Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective.
The physical relation that took place in January, 2008 with the prosecutrix
Crl.L.P.313/2013 Page 1 of 3
for the first time were against her wishes and she was not a willing and
consenting party. Subsequently, her consent to have physical relations was
obtained on the false promise of marriage. The respondent did not fulfill
his promise and assurance and opted to marry another girl. Statements of
the witnesses and other material proved on record were not appreciated
correctly by the Court below. Learned counsel for the respondent urged
that the impugned judgment is based upon fair appreciation of the
evidence and needs no intervention. The prosecutrix was major aged
around 30 years; she was an educated lady. Both, the prosecutrix and the
respondent were on friendly terms and physical relations between the two
(if any) were with their free consent. It was one-sided love and the
respondent never gave any promise to marry the victim any time.
Admitted e-mails sent by the prosecutrix to the respondent confirm this.
Source: Indian Kanoon