JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This application for leave to appeal is because of being aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court i.e., Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Pratapgarh camp Chittorgarh passed in Cr. Case No.26/2006 by which the respondent accused was acquitted from the charges of offences under Section 366, 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(XII)(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the prosecution case itself, the complainant lodged one FIR on 8th June, 2006 in the police station at Chittorgarh which was registered as FIR No.270/2006 under Section 376 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the complainant-prosecutrix is a married lady and her husband is one Mahesh. Since before her marriage, she was in contact with the accused-respondent because of the reason that prosecutrix's mother and father were political leaders and, therefore, in that connection accused used to come to her home. In the year 2003, he tied the 'Rakhi' also. In the year 2003 itself, the accused called the complainant in one Photo Studio and took her some obscene photographs. The accused thereafter, used to blackmail the complainant and because of that she went in depression. She also took treatment in the hospital. Once when she came to her father's house, then the accused tried to malign the complainant by telling some false facts to complainant's husband. On 12th July, 2004 when the complainant was going for Nimach from Chittorgarh and when she reached to Chittorgarh Railway Station she found that the accused was also present there. He gave threat about showing her obscene photographs to others and forced her to accompany him. Thereby the accused took the complainant with him at several places and rapped her several times. Ultimately, she became pregnant and gave birth to one girl child on 23rd Oct., 2005. The complainant also stated that after birth of this girl baby, she went to house of the accused with here daughter where the family members of the accused gave beating to the complainant and tired to kill her daughter. However, she could escape from their hands and again reached to Kota. It is further alleged that all it has been done by the accused by giving assurance of marriage. 4. However, she could escape from their hands and again reached to Kota. It is further alleged that all it has been done by the accused by giving assurance of marriage. 4. In the trial court witnesses PW-1 Madanlal, PW-2 Jankilal, PW-3 Rajesh Mochi, PW-4 Nakshtra Singh, PW- 5. Laxminarayan Parmar, PW-6 Ganga Parmar, PW-7 Ishwar Lal Tripathi, PW-8 Mangilal, PW-9 Dr. Maya Jethani, PW-10 Premchand, PW-11 Ratan Singh, PW-12 Ghanshyam, PW-13 Rod Singh, PW-14 Govind Ram, PW-15 Sanjay Prajapat, PW-16 prosecutrix herself and PW-17 Chandra Prakash Sharma were examined by the prosecution. The documentary evidence including medical reports were also exhibited. 5. The trial court after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution held that the complainant was a literate lady. She was married since 2004 and as per her mother PW-6 who admittedly, a political leader got knowledge of alleged abduction of the accused on 12th July, 2004 itself but she did not lodge any FIR. This fact was in addition to the important material fact that the complainant herself, who was a girl of 25 years of age and was literate and she herself admitted that she was taken by the accused from the Railway Station to Bus Station and, thereafter, she lived with the accused for almost two years at various places also visited several places and she was also engaged in the marketing, she had several opportunities to approach the police station, but she did not approach the police station. She also admitted that before birth of baby to her, she never requested accused to marry her. Not only this, even according to complainant herself that she took treatment from the doctor because of her depression during this period and house of Superintendent of Police was just behind the house of the doctor, but she did not lodge complaint. The complainant did not contact her mother and father from 12th July, 2004 to 4th June, 2006, if her contention is accepted that she was abducted on 12th July, 2004. The complainant could lodge FIR after two years on 4th June, 2006. The trial court also observed that it was alleged that she was abducted from the Railway station and was taken to the Chittorgarh Bus stand and the police Chowki is just near the Chittorgarh Bus stand then she had full opportunity to lodged FIR at that time also. The complainant could lodge FIR after two years on 4th June, 2006. The trial court also observed that it was alleged that she was abducted from the Railway station and was taken to the Chittorgarh Bus stand and the police Chowki is just near the Chittorgarh Bus stand then she had full opportunity to lodged FIR at that time also. In all these circumstances coupled with the evidence of the doctor, who opined that the complainant was major and habitual to sexual intercourse, the trial court reached to the conclusion that complainant failed to prove the allegations of her abduction and commission of rape upon her by the accused. There was no injury on the body of the complainant. 6. I considered the entire facts and perused the record also. From the statement of the complainant and her mother, the finding recorded by the trial court finds full support and all circumstances clearly reveal that the trial court rightly reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove any allegations of commission of offence against the accused and neither the allegations finds support from the statement of complainant or her mother or very any other witnesses produced by the prosecution. 7. I do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal in this case in the facts of the present case. 8. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Application dismissed. *******