JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 4.3.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Bhilwara (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 23/2008, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 and 323/34 I.P.C. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused-respondents by producing cogent and reliable evidence but the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in not relying on the same and has illegally acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 and 323/34 i.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that though the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story in her statement recorded before the Trial Court, but she admitted her signatures on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in such event, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 I.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed that the leave to appeal to this Court may be granted. 3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 4. The learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment, has taken into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix PW-3 recorded before the Court during the trial and has held that the prosecutrix clearly admitted that she went with the accused-respondent -Vikram Snigh as per her own will and also stated that she lived with the accused-respondent-Vikram Singh as his wife. The prosecutrix has also denied the allegation of rape by accused-respondents. The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded before the Court, had not alleged against the accused-respondents and clearly stated that it is wrong to say that accused-respondent-Vikram Singh and other accused-persons had sexually assaulted her. 5. After perusing the statement of PW-3- prosecutrix, this Court is of the opinion that in her statement, she clearly stated that the accused-respondents had not sexually assaulted her and she went with the accused-respondent-Vikram Singh as per her own will and lived with him as his wife. In her statement, the prosecutrix stated her age as 18 years at the time of incident. 6. In her statement, the prosecutrix stated her age as 18 years at the time of incident. 6. Looking to the statement of the prosecutrix, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, wherein the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 and 323/34 I.P.C. Hence, the State has failed to make out any case for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. 7. Hence; the leave to appeal filed by the State is dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******