JUDGMENT 1. - The instant leave to appeal application has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment-dated 12.4.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 17/2011 (34/2011), whereby the respondent Shiv Lal was acquitted of the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Sh. Nathu Ram filed a written report (Ex. P-17) at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Sriganganagar on 6.4.2011. It was alleged in the report that on 4.4.2011 at about 11 O'clock in the morning, the respondent Shiv Lal kidnapped the complainant's minor daughter Smt. 'M'. The complainant tried to search for his daughter but was unsuccessful. 3. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 38/2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A of the I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The victim was found on 7.4.2011 at the Railway Crossing on Mirjewala Road. She alleged that the accused kidnapped her and thereafter subjected her to forcible intercourse. The accursed was arrested and upon conclusion in investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. 4. Upon committal of the case, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-respondent for the aforementioned offences. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the prosecution story in his statement and submitted that he had been implicated in the case because Kumbha Ram the real maternal uncle of the prosecutrix was inimical to him. The learned Trial Judge took note of the fact that the evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix was unreliable because the original documents pertaining to her age at the time of her initial admission in school were not proved by the prosecution. The learned Trial Judge also noted the fact that no injuries were found on the victim's body on her medical examination. It was also noted that the prosecutrix was found habituated to sexual intercourse. The Trial Judge thus, concluded that the prosecutrix was a major girl at the time of occurrence. The learned Trial Judge also noted the fact that the initial statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Investigating Officer on 7.4.2011 (Ex.D-1) was totally in favour of the accused. It was also noted that the prosecutrix was found habituated to sexual intercourse. The Trial Judge thus, concluded that the prosecutrix was a major girl at the time of occurrence. The learned Trial Judge also noted the fact that the initial statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Investigating Officer on 7.4.2011 (Ex.D-1) was totally in favour of the accused. The relevant portions from the statement (Ex.D-1) with which the prosecutrix was confronted at the trial are reproduced hereinbelow: " ------;g ckr esjs ?kjokyksa dks irk py xbZ rks mUgksus eq>s Ldwy tkus ls gVk fn;k FkkA------ " " ----- eSaus ekrk firk }kjk ekjihV djus dh cker crkbZ------ " 5. The Trial Judge took note of the fact that the prosecutrix improved from the said statement and gave a highly exaggerated version at the trial. The Trial Court also noted the fact that when the prosecutrix was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (the statement being Ex.P-5) she clearly denied the fact that the accused committed rape with her. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated as under: " ------esjs lkFk f'koyky us dksbZ xyr dke ugha fd;kA " 6. Considering all these shortcomings in the prosecution story, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to hold that the prosecution could not bring home the charge against the respondent and accordingly, he acquitted the respondent holding it to be a case of consent. The State of Rajasthan has now challenged the judgment of acquittal by way of the instant leave to appeal application. 7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent and upon perusal of the judgment impugned and the record, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge whilst acquitting the respondent are just, proper and based on appropriate appreciation of the evidence led at the trial. The prosecution could not lead appropriate evidence to prove the age of the prosecutrix claimed to be recorded in the school. As per the medical officer Dr. Prem Bajaj PW-3 the prosecutrix was not having any injury on her person. She was found habituated to sexual intercourse. After being found, the prosecutrix PW-1 was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 7.4.2011. She admitted to her love affair with the respondent. As per the medical officer Dr. Prem Bajaj PW-3 the prosecutrix was not having any injury on her person. She was found habituated to sexual intercourse. After being found, the prosecutrix PW-1 was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 7.4.2011. She admitted to her love affair with the respondent. Upon being confronted at the trial, she totally denied her statement Ex.D-1 recorded by the Investigating Officer. Even when she was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she specifically stated that the accused did not commit rape upon her. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge committed no error, illegality or perversity in discarding the prosecution case and acquitting the respondent. 9. The Judgment of acquittal thus cannot be held to be perverse, illegal or based or improper appreciation of evidence so as to call for any interference in this application for leave to appeal. 10. Accordingly, the leave to appeal application filed by the State of Rajasthan for being granted the leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 12.4.2012 passed 'by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar acquitting the respondent of the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. being meritless is rejected.Leave to appeal is dismissed. *******