JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Cr.MP(M) No.1619 of 2015. Heard. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-State for condonation of delay of 33 days as has occurred in the institution of the appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment rendered on 24.06.2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin (Camp at Bilaspur), District Bialspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions trial No.05/7 of 2015. Good, sufficient and abundant cause, which deterred or precluded the petitioner to move this Court within time stands detailed in paragraphs No.2 and 3 of the application, whose contents stand duly supported by an affidavit. The said ground does not divulge of there being any element of deliberateness on the part of the petitioner to not move this Court within time. Accordingly, delay in the institution of the appeal before this Court stands condoned and the application stands allowed. Cr.MP(M) No. 1 6 18 of 2015. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh stands aggrieved by the findings of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent/accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, Camp at Bialspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Being aggrieved, it has sought the leave of this Court for instituting an appeal therefrom for assailing it. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that prosecutrix was at home on 29.9.2014 up till 9.30 p.m. Thereafter, she went missing. She was not having any mobile phone or other articles. Nothing had been taken by her from home. She was searched by Prakash Chand every where including at the houses of his relatives, but she was not traceable. She had not been seen going away by any one. She had gone to ITI early in the morning at 8.30 a.m. and had returned back home at 5.30 p.m that day. Prakash Chand suspected some one to have kidnapped his daughter. A written complaint (Ex.PW7/A) was moved to Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur where FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, on 4.10.2014, SI Naresh Kumar along with L.C. Sarswati, C. Ranbir Singh, Parkash Chand Sanjay Kumar had gone to Pouri Gadwal, as they had received an information that accused and the prosecutrix were present there. A written complaint (Ex.PW7/A) was moved to Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur where FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, on 4.10.2014, SI Naresh Kumar along with L.C. Sarswati, C. Ranbir Singh, Parkash Chand Sanjay Kumar had gone to Pouri Gadwal, as they had received an information that accused and the prosecutrix were present there. However, they could not be traced that day and while they were returning back, Prakash Chand received a telephonic call from Kishore Kumar, the brother of the accused, who was residing at Kurukeshtra that he could lead them to the house of the accused at Pouri Gadwal in village Tamlag. The prosecutrix and the accused were found siting there in a room. The prosecutrix was identified by Prakash Chand. She was handed over to her father Prakash Chand. A bed sheet was seized vide seizure memo. Spot map was prepared. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Sonu Kumari and she opined that there were no external injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. Possibility of sexual assault was not ruled out. During the course of investigation, the preserved clothes, vaginal slides, vaginal swabs, pubic hair etc were sent for chemical and forensic examination and the Investigating Officer prepared the spot maps of the places where the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused on the identification of the prosecutrix. The statements of the witnesses were recorded separately, copy of birth certificate and abstract of pariwar register were taken into possession and forensic report from FSL, was procured separately. 4. On conclusion of the investigation into the offences allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood prepared and filed in the Court. 5. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. 6. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent. 7. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. 6. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent. 7. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Advocate General has concerted to vigorously contend qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court being not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs being sequelled by gross mis- appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends for leave being granted to the State of H.P. to institute an appeal therefrom for assailing it. 8. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General at length and have also gone through the entire material on record. 9. Both copy of matriculation certificate and copy of pariwar register record the factum of the prosecutrix standing born on 08.03.1994. Consequently, at the stage contemporaneous to the ill-fated occurrence(s), she was a major, hence competent to accord consent to the forcible sexual intercourses, if any, performed with her by the accused. For determining whether the sexual intercourses performed by the accused with the prosecutrix had any grain or element of consensuality, the preeminent evidence on record thereto is constituted in the testimony of the prosecutrix. Only on unfoldments therein on a incisive reading thereto in a wholesome manner of hers rendering an inspiring and credible version qua the incident kindled by the factum of her testimony qua the incident constituted in her examination-in-chief vis-a-vis her cross-examination being consistent besides harmonious would leave it bereft of any taint of inter se contradictions whereupon it would for reiteration constitute formidable evidence of immense vigour and force for sustaining the guilt of the accused. 10. Primarily, an advertence to the testimony of the prosecutrix comprised in her cross-examination necessitates at the out set an immediate advertence thereto for determining therefrom the factum of the accused and the prosecutrix being on intimate terms with each other, prodding both to hence volitionally depart from Bilaspur to the native home of the accused at Pouri Gadwal. 10. Primarily, an advertence to the testimony of the prosecutrix comprised in her cross-examination necessitates at the out set an immediate advertence thereto for determining therefrom the factum of the accused and the prosecutrix being on intimate terms with each other, prodding both to hence volitionally depart from Bilaspur to the native home of the accused at Pouri Gadwal. Even though the prosecutrix in the opening line of her cross-examination has denied the suggestion put to her by the learned defence counsel of the accused not tenanting the premises of her father. Nonetheless, when the said fact stood communicated by her to the Investigating Officer when the latter recorded her previous statement in writing belies the denial on the part of the prosecutrix of the accused not tenanting the premises of her father, wherefrom an inference stands bolstered of both on enjoying intimacy with each other prior to the ill-fated occurrence at Pouri Gadwal whereat the native village of the accused is situated proceeding thereto volitionally. With an inference standing aroused qua both the accused and the prosecutrix enjoying intimacy with each other belies the version constituted in the examination-inchief of the prosecutrix of on 29.9.2014 whereon hers at the invitation of the accused visited the room of the latter, of the accused meteing threatenings of eliminating her for subduing her from raising an outcry and his concealing her under a cot besides the factum as communicated by her in her examination-in-chief of hers falling unconscious and hers regaining consciousness on 30.09.2014 at Pouri Gadwal, is compatibly incredible besides is feeble in probative vigour especially when she in her cross-examination admits the factum of hers proceeding to the room of the accused on receiving a call from him, with whom therein she also concedes to be well acquainted given his residing in close vicinity to her homestead preponderantly when she also concedes in her cross-examination of on arrival of her parents in the room of the accused, hers taking to conceal herself underneath the cot concomitantly subjugates her testimony in her examination-in-chief of the accused concealing her under the cot whereafter she fell unconscious and hers regaining consciousness only on 30.09.2014 at Pouri Gadwal. Moreover, the fact deposed by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief of hers losing consciousness in the room of the accused at Bilaspur whereto she proceeded on 29.9.2014 and hers regaining consciousness on 30.9.2014 at Pouri Gadwal stands spurred from an omission of any communication in the testimony of Prakash Chand, the father of the prosecutrix of hers on his along with police officials and Sanjay Kumar visiting her at Pouri Gadwal making any disclosure to them qua hers standing carried forcibly or in an unconscious condition by the accused from Bilaspur to Pouri Gadwal or hers omitting to disclose to PW-7 when he met the prosecutrix at Pouri Gadwal qua the accused subjecting her to forcible sexual intercourses is connotative of hers consensually succumbing to the sexual overtures of the accused. The inference aforesaid is lent impetus by both PW-1 L.C. Sarswati Devi and PW-2 Sanjay Kumar, who along with PW-7 visited Pouri Gadwal to locate the prosecutrix at the house of the accused being both reticent qua any disclosure standing purveyed to them by the prosecutrix of hers standing carried forcibly or in an unconscious condition by the accused from Bilaspur to Pouri Gadwal also with theirs not articulating therein of the prosecutrix at Pouri Gadwal divulging to them of the accused thereat performing forcible sexual intercourses with her, with aplomb also constrains the conclusions (a) of the prosecutrix voluntarily departing in the company of the accused from Bilaspur to Pouri Gadwal and (b) of hers consensually scumbbing to the sexual overtures of the accused at Pouri Gadwal. Furthermore, the prosecutrix stayed for 4-5 days in the company of the accused at Pouri Gadwal yet despite hers conceding in her cross-examination to the suggestion put to her by the learned defence counsel of homesteads existing in the vicinity of the house of the accused at Pouri Gadwal she abstained to unfold any occurrence/occurrences of sexual intercourses performed purportedly forcibly with her by the accused clinches an inference of hers affording consent to the accused in his sexually accessing her. The effect of the aforesaid conclusions is of the prosecutrix voluntarily proceeding in the company of the accused from Bilaspur to Pouri Gadwal besides of hers consensually performing sexual intercourses, if any, with the accused at Pouri Gadwal. 11. The effect of the aforesaid conclusions is of the prosecutrix voluntarily proceeding in the company of the accused from Bilaspur to Pouri Gadwal besides of hers consensually performing sexual intercourses, if any, with the accused at Pouri Gadwal. 11. The prosecutrix has faintly as well as feebly in her examination-in-chief unfolded the factum of the accused purveying an offer of marriage to her, in hope whereto she performed sexual intercourses with the accused, whereupon the prosecution espouses of the sexual intercourses which the accused performed with the prosecutrix at Pouri Gadwal obviously being under a pretext or allurement of marriage proffered by the accused to the prosecutrix whereupon the effect, if any, of consensuality of the prosecutrix to the accused in sexually accessing her stands striped off of its vigour. However, the aforesaid contention is feeble as well as tenuous arousable from the factum of (a) hers as imminent from a perusal of the testimonies of PW-7 Prakash Chand, PW-1 L.C. Sarswati Devi and PW-2 Sanajay Kumar being unarticulative in their respective depositions of the prosecutrix when stood located by them at the house of the accused at Pouri Gadwal of hers thereat purveying a disclosure to each of them of the accused under any allurement or enticement of marrying her carrying her from Bilaspur to Pouri Gadwal rather when they bespeak therein of thereat the prosecutrix being incommunicative even qua the accused thereat forcibly sexually accessing her renders her deposition in her examination-in-chief of hers succumbing to the sexual overtures of the accused at Pouri Gadwal under any pretext or allurement of marriage proffered to her by the accused to be wholly engineered as well as an afterthought, whereupon no credibility is fastenable. Even her examination-in-chief wherein the factum occurs of the accused under a pretext of marriage performing sexual intercourses with her yet occurrence therein subsequent to hers precedingly deposing therein of the accused at Pouri Gadwal performing sexual intercourses with her at Pouri Gadwal whereat she stayed in his company for 4-5 days bespeaks of sexual intercourses which the accused performed with her thereat being not under any pretext of or allurement of marriage proffered by the accused to her, with a concomitant effect of the latter communications in her examination-in-chief of the sexual intercourses which she performed at Pouri Gadwal with the accused being under a pretext of marriage especially with their occurrence being subsequent to the communications therein of hers previously thereto performing sexual intercourses with the accused constrain an inference of no reliance being imputed thereto especially when the promise or allurement of marriage whereunder she succumbed to the sexual overtures of the accused warranted an articulation thereto at her instance prior to their perpetration upon her person rather than subsequent to hers permitting the accused to sexually access her. As a corollary hers in her examination-in-chief deposing later to hers precedingly deposing of the accused performing sexual intercourses with her, of the accused refusing to marry her is the least connotative of sexual intercourses which she performed with the accused carrying any trait of their performance labouring under any pretext or allurement of marriage proffered to her by the accused. The aforesaid inferences gets vigour from the factum of the prosecutrix omitting to record the aforesaid fact in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. With medical evidence not bespeaking the factum of any occurrence of any injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix in manifestation of hers resisting the sexually overtures of the accused compels an inference entwinement with the aforesaid inferences of the prosecutrix consensually succumbing to the sexual overtures of the accused. The upshot of the above discussion is of the prosecutrix voluntarily taking to join the company of the accused from Bilaspur upto Pouri Gadwal besides hers consensually succumbing to the sexual overtures of the accused at Pouri Gadwal. 12. The upshot of the above discussion is of the prosecutrix voluntarily taking to join the company of the accused from Bilaspur upto Pouri Gadwal besides hers consensually succumbing to the sexual overtures of the accused at Pouri Gadwal. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. Consequently, the instant application is dismissed, in sequel, the prayer of the State of Himachal Pradesh for grant of leave to it to appeal against the judgment of the learned trial Court is refused.