JUDGMENT Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, J.: - Crl.Misc. No. 19732 of 2014 1. C.M. is allowed. Statement of PW1 (Annexure A1) is taken on record. Main case 2. The complainant-prosecutrix has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.3.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which all the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 376, 120-B and 201 IPC. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 17.5.2013 the complainant/prosecutrix (name withheld to protect the identity) came to the Police Station, NIT, Faridabad, and made a complaint before SI Kamla Devi stating that she was 23 years of age and had been educated in B.K.Senior Secondary School, Shiv Vihar, Palwal and K.L.Mehta Dayanand College, NIT, Faridabad. It was further stated that several months ago the prosecutrix had met Dhanwati and her brother Sanjay in the market and after a few days she started receiving calls on her mobile. On inquiry, the caller identified himself as Sanjay. One day Sanjay called her up inviting her to join his sister who was sitting in Cafe’ Coffee Day, NIT 5, Faridabad. Sanjay took the complainant in a red coloured Bolero with dark tinted glasses to the aforesaid coffee shop where Dhanwati was already present and three coffee cups were on the table. After consuming coffee, the complainant felt giddy and asked Dhanwati what has been mixed in the coffee. She has been told that she might be suffering from some indigestion. Thereafter, the complainant became unconscious and when she re-gained consciousness in the evening, she came to know that Sanjay had forcibly raped her and also taken photographs and video recording of the act. Sanjay threatened her that if she did not come on his asking, he would release the pictures and videos. Being afraid that her reputation might be spoiled, she continued to meet Sanjay. 4. It was further stated that on 18.10.2012 Sanjay summoned the complainant at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi where he married her. On 23.10.2012 Sanjay again forcibly called her to Delhi and took her to the same temple where he again performed marriage with her for the second time. During this period, he continued to threaten her. 4. It was further stated that on 18.10.2012 Sanjay summoned the complainant at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi where he married her. On 23.10.2012 Sanjay again forcibly called her to Delhi and took her to the same temple where he again performed marriage with her for the second time. During this period, he continued to threaten her. On 17.1.2013 Sanjay, Dhanwati, Kusum and their father Radha Charan called her and suggested that she should get the marriage cancelled from the Court as their son Sanjay had committed a wrong thing. Instead of getting the marriage cancelled, the accused got registered the marriage. 5. In the complaint, it was averred that Sanjay raped her under threat whereas the other three accused i.e. his father and sisters connived and permitted Sanjay to commit the wrongful act. Before the trial Court, she made the same allegations as made in the FIR. However, the trial Court Judge found that the story as put up by the prosecutrix did not appear to be true. The trial Court held that although photographs of the prosecutrix (Exs.D3 and D4) were available on record but the photographs depicted that the prosecutrix was in a happy frame of mind. She was seen in affectionate poses with the accused Sanjay and her claim that she had posed for them under threat from Sanjay did not seem plausible. There was no obscene photographs and videos of the prosecutrix in compromising position with the accused Sanjay. 6. Apart from the above, in the cross-examination the Marriage Certificate (Ex.P5) of the prosecutrix and accused Sanjay was put to the prosecutrix which was admitted by her. The complainant also admitted having signed the same. It was not under any pressure or threat. The trial Court also held that the prosecutrix has not explained the reason for the alleged two marriage ceremonies nor has she explained as to why two marriages have been registered. The alleged rape is stated to have taken place several months prior to the lodging of the complaint with the police. Moreover, the story put up by the complainant is highly improbable as no father or sister would help his son in committing rape upon a woman. On these grounds the trial Court acquitted all the four accused. 7. The alleged rape is stated to have taken place several months prior to the lodging of the complaint with the police. Moreover, the story put up by the complainant is highly improbable as no father or sister would help his son in committing rape upon a woman. On these grounds the trial Court acquitted all the four accused. 7. Counsel for the complainant/prosecutrix has argued that the complainant had made a statement not only before the police but before the Court wherein she alleged that she has been raped by the accused Sanjay and in this act his father Radha Charan and his two sisters Dhanwati and Kusum were accomplices. It is contended that the accused are liable to be punished for the offences for which they have been charged. 8. However, a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the prosecutrix contracted two marriages with Sanjay and the marriages were also got registered. The complainant was an educated girl who had done her M.Ed. and even her father was on an influential position as he was working as a Superintendent in the DCs office. It is most unlikely that the complainant could contract two marriages with Sanjay and got the marriage registered. There is no explanation forthcoming as to how the marriage was got registered. The prosecutrix could have easily protested if she was not interested in marrying the accused Sanjay. A Perusal of the judgment also shows that even the four pictures of their marriage and five routine pictures which were placed on record as Exs. D3 and D4 did not show that she was under threat or any coercion from the accused party. The trial Court has observed that the prosecutrix seems to be in a happy frame of mind. It is also most unlikely that a father and his two daughters would help his son in committing rape upon another woman. This scenario is most improbable. Neither there is any evidence against Radha Charan, Kusum and Dhanwati nor there is any evidence against the accused Sanjay. Hence, all the four accused have rightly been acquitted by the trial Court. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal filed by the complainant/prosecutrix. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————