JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondents on notice. Perused the judgment and order of the acquittal dated 19.12.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra. 2. The accused respondents were put to trial for the offences under Sections 366, 493, 342, 376/34 and 323 IPC. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence produced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them for the offences noticed above. 3. I have carefully gone through the statement of PW11 Selma, the prosecutrix aged about 21 years, her father PW15, PW14 Dr. Shivmangal Nagai, who examined the prosecutrix after the alleged occurrence. According to PVV-14 on examination of the prosecutrix it could not said that there was recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He further stated that there is no evidence for sexual intercourse even for last few days. The injuries suffered by the prosecutrix were superficial and simple in nature and according to doctor can be stated to be self inflicted injury. Doctor opined that there was no injury on the private parts or thighs of the prosecutrix. In case of forcible sexual intercourse, injuries may be caused either on the private part or on the thighs or on both. The case as set up by the prosecution does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. The theory propounded by the prosecution is otherwise improbable as the parents of prosecutrix were hardly hundred yards away from the place of occurrence, She in clear terms stated that while she was being taken in Society Bhawan, there were many persons met on the way but she did not raise any cry even after when police recovered her. This clear goes to show that even if any act has been done, then she was a consenting party. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecutrix does not find corroboration from any other evidence including the medical evidence. The prosecution has tried to improve the case before the court. The prosecutrix was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but the material evidence was not disclosed regarding forcible sexual intercourse. 4. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecutrix does not find corroboration from any other evidence including the medical evidence. The prosecution has tried to improve the case before the court. The prosecutrix was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but the material evidence was not disclosed regarding forcible sexual intercourse. 4. On careful scrutiny of the statements of various prosecution witnesses, I find that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court, cannot be said to be erroneous. In the circumstances therefore, it is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Hence, leave is refused. Application seeking leave to appeal is rejected.Leave to Appeal Refused. *******