JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who happens to be the brother of prosecutrix Mamta, filed this criminal revision petition against the order dated 4.4.2003, of acquittal of respondent (accused) Hanuman, from offences under Sections 366, 365, 343 and 376 IPC, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Session Case No. 46/2002 (21/2001). 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant had lodged a written report Exhibit P.1, at police station Chaksu on 9/11/2000 with the facts that their neighbour Hanuman son of Kajod, kidnapped his sister Mamta aged about 1516 years on 3.11.2000, and that he was seen near Niwai. Further that, he had lodged the missing person report on 5.11.2000, but thereafter he came to know that respondent Hanuman had kidnapped her. On this report, case under Sections 363, 365 and 366 IPC was registered at police station Chaksu. During investigation, the prosecutrix Mamta was recovered and her statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter to be referred as 'the Code') were got recorded and also her medical examination for the purposes of offence and age, was got done and the school certificate of Mamta was also procured by the Investigating Officer, and after usual investigation, challan for offences under Sections 363, 365, 366, 376 and 343 IPC, was filed against the present respondent Hanuman, whereas against his co accused Bhanwar Lal, charge-sheet for offences under Sections 363, 365, 366A and 343 IPC had been filed. 3. The case being exclusively triable by session, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, where-from it was received by the Additional Sessions Judge by way of transfer. After hearing the charge arguments, the learned trial court discharged the co accused Bhanwar Lal from all the offences, whereas respondent Hanuman was read over the charges under Sections 366, 365, 343 and 376 IPC, which were denied by him and trial was claimed. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code and alleged false implication stating that the prosecutrix Mamta was more than 20 years old and had gone with him of her own sweet will. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code and alleged false implication stating that the prosecutrix Mamta was more than 20 years old and had gone with him of her own sweet will. He examined two defence witnesses - DW.1 Ramphool and DW.2 Devaram, and exhibited six documents, which included the statement of prosecutrix Mamta, recorded under Section 164 of the Code (which was not exhibited by the prosecution). 5. After hearing both the parties, and on the basis of material before it, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent of all the offences charged vide its order dated 4.4.2003, which has been assailed by way of this revision petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and the learned Additional Govt. Counsel for respondent No. 2 State. 7. After having perused the material on record, in particular the statements of PW.1 Ranglal, the brother of prosecutrix; PW.5 Ghasi, the father of prosecutrix; PW.11 Gendi, the mother of prosecutrix; PW.18 Hari Singh, the Investigating Officer; PW.6 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma and PW.12 Dr. Pushpa Nagar, the Medical Officers; and also the statements of PW.7 the prosecutrix herself, along with the documentary evidence, in particular Exhibit P.10, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or perversity in recording the finding of acquittal of the respondent. 8. So far as the age of prosecutrix Mamta is concerned, no documentary evidence had been filed by the prosecution. The medical evidence in this regard clearly shows that she has been assessed to be more than 18 and less than 20 years. PW.6 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma has proved the document Exhibit P.10. As per PW.5 Ghasi, who is the father of prosecutrix, the age of his daughter was one or two years less than 20 years. His statements were : " eerk vHkh 20 lky ls nks lky NksVh gSA " In the same manner, according to PW. 11 Gendi, who is the mother of prosecutrix, the age of the prosecutrix is more than 20 years. 9. Strangely, the statements of prosecutrix, which were recorded under Section 164 of the Code, have not been relied on by the prosecution. 11 Gendi, who is the mother of prosecutrix, the age of the prosecutrix is more than 20 years. 9. Strangely, the statements of prosecutrix, which were recorded under Section 164 of the Code, have not been relied on by the prosecution. On the contrary, the defence has produced that as Exhibit D.3. During the cross of examination, the prosecutrix PW.7 Mamta stated that her eldest brother Ranglal is 35 years old and there is a difference of age of two years in other siblings and she is on the 6th number from Ranglal, whereby the age of prosecutrix comes around 25 years. 10. In these circumstances, I do not find any fault in the finding of the learned court below with regard to the age of prosecutrix. 11. The second circumstance appreciated by the learned trial court was, that the prosecutrix is stated to have been abducted on the 3rd November, whereas the report has been lodged on 9th November i.e. after six days and no explanation has been given for that. The contention of petitioner that he had lodged the missing person report, is also not borne out because this missing report has also not been placed on record by the prosecution. The learned trial court has found material contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix given before the police at the first point of time being Exhibit D.2 and her statements under Section 164 of the Code exhibited by the accused as Exhibit D.3. Moreover, the mother of prosecutrix Gendi PW.11, has clearly stated that : " guqeku eerk dks lkFk ysdj ?kwe vk;kA guqeku us eerk ls dqN ugha fd;kA " As per the medical evidence of PW.6 and PW.12, she was between the age of 16 20 years and was habitual of sex and no injury was found on her body or her genitals. 12. The learned trial court, on the basis of material before it, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecutrix was major and was a consenting party, and that she had left her home of her own sweet will at midnight, after planning with the accused. As per the prosecution, she was taken to Niwai after abduction, and then to Sawai Madhopur, but strangely, nowhere she made any hue and cry or tried to tell the landlord/landlady or anybody in the Dharamshala or the places they stayed as husband & wife, on rent. As per the prosecution, she was taken to Niwai after abduction, and then to Sawai Madhopur, but strangely, nowhere she made any hue and cry or tried to tell the landlord/landlady or anybody in the Dharamshala or the places they stayed as husband & wife, on rent. According to Shanti Devi PW.13, the prosecutrix told her that Hanuman was her husband. 13. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot be said in this case. On the contrary, the prosecution's material corroborates defence version. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any fault in the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, which may warrant any interference. Moreover, it is also settled principle that in a petition filed against the order of acquittal, even if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused, has to be adopted, as by receiving acquittal in his favour by the trial court, he has already got presumption of innocence in his favour. 15. Accordingly, this revision petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******