JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. State is in appeal against the order of acquittal dated 24.05.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Poonch by virtue of which the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 376, 506 Ranbir Penal Code. State has also filed an application seeking leave to appeal as also application for condonation of delay of 118 days. 2. At the very outset, we must appreciate the fairness of Sh. Ravinder Sharma, learned AAG, who has stated that there is no merit in the appeal and the same may be dismissed. However, in order to satisfy ourselves, we have with the able assistance of the learned AAG, gone over the judgment passed by learned trial Court and are of the view that the conclusions reached therein resulting in the acquittal of the respondent do not warrant any interference by this Court in view of the reasons mentioned hereunder: 3. P.W. 1-Parveen Kouser, in her examination-in-chief on 14.10.2009, has stated that on 6th Jeith 2009 the accused caught her at the spring and took her to the Jungle where he committed rape on her as a result of which she became pregnant, of which, she came to know after one month; that the accused told her that he would marry her but cautioned her not to disclose this fact to anyone, otherwise he would kill her and due to this fear she did not disclose the same to anyone. However, on her narrating the story to the mother of the accused, she was again advised not to disclose the same to anyone and the accused would marry her. However, her parents came to know about the same on 15.01.2009 on account of the fact that she was in pain. PW-1 further stated that her uncle Kabir, Mohd. Liaquat and Hamida Bi assaulted her and took her to hospital at Poonch accompanied by her parents and Mohd. Azam. After first taking her to the Police Station, she was admitted in the hospital for two days where-after on 19.01.2009 she gave birth to a child and police recorded her statement on 22.02.2009, on the basis of which, FIR was lodged. Child born from her of the accused was alive. Her statement was recorded before the Court under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. on 15.05.2009. Child born from her of the accused was alive. Her statement was recorded before the Court under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. on 15.05.2009. The same was read over to her in the open Court and she admitted the same to be correct. In her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the police recorded her statement twice and after three months her statement was recorded before the Court. Regarding her statement that the accused caught hold of her at the spring on 6th Jeith 2009 and took her to the Jungle where he committed rape upon her, PW-1 stated that she had stated the same before the Police as well as before the Court. However, there is no mention in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she was caught hold of by the accused at the spring and taken to the Jungle as she had stated before the Court. Likewise, there is no mention of forcible sexual intercourse in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when the same was read over to her in open Court. It is further recorded that in the month of Jeith 2009, she developed illicit relationship with the accused and accused committed rape upon her on three different occasions, but she did not raise any alarm because there was no house nearby. PW-1 further stated that she had correctly stated in her statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. that accused had continuously committed sexual intercourse with her for three-four months; that she was married to Mohd. Khalil with whom she resided at Poonch for ten days and at Jammu for fifteen days, and on 17.02.2007 her husband divorced her; that the accused was a regular visitor to her house and that she developed illicit relations with the accused after marriage. 4. From the above it is clear that there is an improvement in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. with regard to accused having caught hold of her at the spring and having taken her to the Jungle where he raped her as also with regard to having committed rape upon her on three different occasions since there is no mention of forcible sexual intercourse in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 5. PW-1 has also admitted that the accused was a regular visitor to her house and that she had developed illicit relations with the accused after marriage, and further that she stayed with her husband-Mohd. Khalil at Poonch for ten days and at Jammu for fifteen days, and on 17.02.2007 her husband divorced her. Apparently, the complainant has taken up the stand of having been raped by the accused for extraneous consideration. 6. PW2-Mohd. Khalil, in his examination-in-chief on 10.11.2009, stated that he was married to P.W. 1 on 22.12.2007 but she started quarrelling with him just 2/3 days after the marriage on the ground that she would not participate in sexual intercourse with him, otherwise she would commit suicide. He further deposed that she used to talk to the accused secretly on phone. Despite intervention by the parents of P.W. 1, things did not improve resulting in PW2 divorcing P.W. 1 in the presence of witnesses on 17.02.2008. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated that P.W. 1 was married to him against her will and that she was not willing for the said marriage; that she was a lady of bad character and further he had deposed in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she was having illicit relationship with bad character boys of Bandi Chechian; that the accused was a regular visitor at Alla Pir. Other boys were also visiting Alla Pir and having illicit relation with the prosecutrix; that the parents of the prosecutrix had admitted in the Panchayat that the prosecutrix was a bad character lady and that in future she would mend her ways. 7. PW3- Mohd. Azam, in his examination-in-chief on 21.04.2010, stated that PW2 divorced P.W. 1 in a Panchayat held at Parade Ground Poonch on 17.02.2008 and that he was witness to the Divorce-Deed. In his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he had stated before the police that father of the prosecutrix had admitted that she did not want to reside with PW2. 8. PW4-Abdul Rehman, in his examination-in-chief on 11.11.2009, has stated that the marriage between P.W. 1 and PW2 on 22.12.2007 resulted in divorce on 17.02.2008 because of illicit relationship between the accused-Asger Kabir and P.W. 1 Parveen Kouser; that in the absence of Mohd. Khalil the accused used to visit the house of Mohd. Khalil and during one night the accused was caught; that P.W. 1 resided with Mohd. Khalil the accused used to visit the house of Mohd. Khalil and during one night the accused was caught; that P.W. 1 resided with Mohd. Khalil for ten days at Poonch and for fifteen days at Jammu; that she used to quarrel with PW2; that a Panchayat was held before their visit to Jammu wherein it was decided that a chance for reformation be provided to the prosecutrix. However, when the prosecutrix came back from Jammu, PW2 divorced P.W. 1 and that he i.e. PW4 was a witness to the divorce deed. In his cross-examination, PW4 stated that PW2 was his brother-in-law and that P.W. 1 had stated that she was in love with the accused and that her marriage with PW2 was against her wish. Thus, even the statement of PW4 points towards the illicit relationship between the accused and Parveen Kouser even during the period when she was married to PW2 and the accused having been caught one night during one such sojourn. The relation between P.W. 1 and the accused have been elaborated upon as being of love between the two and the marriage of P.W. 1 with PW2 being against her wishes. 9. The prosecutrix's father i.e. Mohd. Aslam PW5, in his examination-in-chief on 21.12.2009, admitted that he knew the accused and that the accused used to follow his daughter despite his advice to the accused and the accused used to meet his daughter i.e. P.W. 1 secretly, as a result of which, her husband-Mohd. Khalil PW2 turned out the prosecutrix from his house; that after holding Panchayat the prosecutrix was sent with her husband-Mohd. Khalil to Jammu but the accused used to talk to her on telephone; that he was called to Jammu where the prosecutrix was handed over to him and he took her to his home at Bandi Chechian; that despite his request to the accused and his mother not to follow his daughter, the accused used to commit rape on his daughter in his absence at his home when he used to go out for business as a result of which she conceived and he came to know about the same when the prosecutrix was about to deliver a child and at that point of time, the prosecutrix admitted that the accused was the father of said child. Report to the above fact was lodged with the Police Station whereupon the prosecutrix was taken to the hospital where she delivered a child who was alive and with the prosecutrix. In his cross examination, PW5 stated that the accused was his neighbourer and that he used to come to his house but uncle of the prosecutrix had forcibly got the prosecutrix married with Mohd. Khalil but the accused was not allowing the prosecutrix to reside with her husband; the family members used to go outside the house for business but the prosecutrix used to stay in the house all alone where the accused was visiting and committing sexual intercourse with P.W. 1 for about two-four months and the prosecutrix was not examined medically during those nine months. Neither he nor his wife was aware of the pregnancy of the prosecutrix but on his relatives coming to know about the said fact assaulted the prosecutrix including them regarding which FIR was lodged. Thus, the evidence of PW5 also points towards a relationship between P.W. 1 and the accused, and of her having been forcibly married to PW2 by her uncle as also that while all family members used to go outside for work, P.W. 1 used to stay alone at home where accused was visiting and committing sexual intercourse with her for about 2-3 months. The relationship between the accused and P.W. 1 was not of recent origin but dated back even to the period prior to her marriage to PW2 resulting in P.W. 1 being divorced by PW2. It is indeed very strange that PW5 i.e. father of the prosecutrix did not come to know that his daughter was pregnant despite the fact that she was staying in his house. 10. Sharifa Bi i.e. PW6 the mother of P.W. 1, in her examination-in-chief on 01.02.2010, stated that on getting labour pains the prosecutrix told the people from the community that she was pregnant by the accused whereupon the persons from the community quarreled with them on which they went to the police station and lodged report in respect thereto in January, 2009. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the accused used to visit her house even before the marriage of the prosecutrix as the prosecutrix and the accused were in love with each other. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the accused used to visit her house even before the marriage of the prosecutrix as the prosecutrix and the accused were in love with each other. She further deposed that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she had not stated that the accused used to visit her house at Alla Pir during day and night and was committing rape upon the prosecutrix at her house when she used to remain outside the house. The evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix categorically admits the relation of love between the prosecutrix and the accused, and of the accused visiting the house of the prosecutrix even before her marriage with PW2. 11. PW7 - Zuffer Iqbal i.e. brother of the prosecutrix, stated that the accused started visiting his house and as told by the prosecutrix he also used to visit the house of her husband. In cross-examination by counsel for the accused, it was admitted by PW7 that he had not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the prosecutrix was pregnant by the accused. 12. Mst. Tanveer Kouser-PW8 i.e. sister of the prosecutrix, in her examination in chief on 16.09.2013, stated that they had lodged a report against the members of the community who had abused them when they learnt that the prosecutrix was pregnant and was having labour pain. Surprisingly, the family members of the prosecutrix i.e. father, mother, brother and sisters took offence at the members of their community abusing and assaulting them on learning the prosecutrix being pregnant and lodged a report but never deemed it appropriate to lodge a report against the accused when he was allegedly visiting her in her husband house or even thereafter at her parents house despite their having allegedly forbidden the accused from meeting the prosecutrix. 13. PW9 i.e. Lady Doctor Shahnaz Bhatti Gynecologist, in her examination-in-chief on 22.12.2009, stated that the case of the prosecutrix was never referred to her as a medico legal case and the case never came to her under Section 376 RPC for medical examination, and that it was a simple case of delivery. 14. Admittedly, PW3 & PW4 are witnesses to the divorce by PW2 to P.W. 1 after few days of marriage. PW4 has stated regarding immoral conduct of P.W. 1 and her illicit relations with the accused. 14. Admittedly, PW3 & PW4 are witnesses to the divorce by PW2 to P.W. 1 after few days of marriage. PW4 has stated regarding immoral conduct of P.W. 1 and her illicit relations with the accused. Admittedly, P.W. 1 was not happy with PW2 as the said marriage was against her wishes as she was in love with accused and was in deep contact with him as well as other boys of Bandi Chechian and had threatened PW2 that if he tried to perform his matrimonial obligations with her, she would commit suicide. PWs 5 to 8 have admitted in their statements that the accused was a regular visitor to their house even after the prosecutrix was taken back by PWs 5 & 6 i.e. her parents to their house where the accused and P.W. 1 used to have sex when P.W. 1 was alone at home. P.W. 1 on the other hand, has admitted that she had developed illicit relation with the accused. The behaviour of the prosecutrix is apparently very abnormal and not suggestive of her being subjected to rape as she was having sex in her own house with the accused continuously over 3-4 months and may be more when her family members used to go outside for work. She never raised hue and cry for having been raped despite her statement that she was taken by the accused to the Jungle for sexual intercourse. She never deemed it prudent to make a complaint even during the period of her pregnancy and it was only on her developing labour pains that she disclosed the fact of being pregnant from the accused to the members of the community, upon which, she and her parents were assaulted leading to filing of a complaint in respect thereto with the police. It is apparent that out of her love for the accused, the prosecutrix withheld disclosure of her being pregnant from the accused for as long as she could for fear of opposition to her relationship with the accused. As per the mother of the prosecutrix i.e. Sharifa Bi PW6, the prosecutrix and the accused were in love with each other even before marriage and that the accused used to come to their house. As per the mother of the prosecutrix i.e. Sharifa Bi PW6, the prosecutrix and the accused were in love with each other even before marriage and that the accused used to come to their house. The prosecutrix has also not explained as to how her fear of any threat at the hands of the accused vanished in January, 2009 leading to her deposition before the police in the hospital where she delivered the child of the accused on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. The statements of PWs 5 to 8 indicate that the prosecutrix and the accused were having sex in the house of the parents of the prosecutrix and the same goes to show that the act of sexual intercourse between the prosecutrix and the accused was with the consent of the prosecutrix on each and every occasion. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by the trial Court holding that no offence under Section 376 RPC was made out against the accused, does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal nor for condoning the delay of 118 days. Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay as well as leave to appeal and consequently the appeal are dismissed. Copy of the judgment be transmitted to the trial Court.