Tue. Jan 19th, 2021

State vs Sumit Kumar on 18 February, 2016

1 min read

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

Leave a Reply