JUDGMENT M.G. Giratkar, J. - State has filed the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.01/2013. The case of the prosecution against the respondent/accused in short is as under: Prosecutrix was residing with her parents at Raiyatwari Jam. She was learning in 10th standard in Nav Bharat Vidyalaya, Vhyad Bujrug. Accused Amrut Jadhav was resident of village Dabhala, Tahsil Tarana, District Ujjain (M.P.). Prior to two years, accused was married to one Anita, the daughter of Maroti Burande resident of village Raiyatwari. The wife of accused being the relative of the prosecutrix, prosecutrix used to meet Anita wife of accused. Accused was acquainted with the prosecutrix. 2. On 17.10.2012 prosecutrix was going to school by walk and when she reached near bus stand, the accused met her and eloped her under the promise of marriage. Accused did sexual intercourse. When she informed her parents on phone. On the report of father of the prosecutrix offence was registered against the accused. Crime was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Crime was investigated by A.P.I. Shri Alone. After complete investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session at Chandrapur. 3. Charge was framed at Exh.8, same was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined in all total nine witnesses. At the conclusion of the trial accused came to be acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. 4. Heard Shri S.M. Ukey, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. None appeared for the respondent. 5. Perused the evidence on record. Evidence of P.W.1 prosecutrix, is very material, she has stated in her evidence that accused eloped her and he did sexual intercourse with her, but in her cross-examination material omissions are brought on record. She deposed in her examination-in-chief that before the incident, he did sexual intercourse on 14.10.2012. But, she did not disclose to her parents or anybody. This material fact not stated by her, in her police statement. 6. She has stated that on 17.10.2012 accused met her, when she was going to school eloped under the promise of marriage. She deposed in her examination-in-chief that before the incident, he did sexual intercourse on 14.10.2012. But, she did not disclose to her parents or anybody. This material fact not stated by her, in her police statement. 6. She has stated that on 17.10.2012 accused met her, when she was going to school eloped under the promise of marriage. In the cross-examination she has admitted that on 17.10.2012 she along with one Tejaswini boarded at Jam bus stand in bus going towards Gadchiroli. Tejaswini went alone and she went to Vhyad bus stand by walking. Accused met her at the bus stand of Vhyad. She was already knowing that accused was married. At Vhyad bus stand some other passengers were also present. She did not ask him that he was already married and how he was going to perform marriage with her. She could tell anybody till she reached village of accused. When she reached to the village of accused his parents, brothers, brother " s wife and their children were present in the house. House of accused was of two rooms. In one room accused was residing and in another room his brother was residing with his family. There was no any separate room. She informed on phone to her father that she was at the house of accused and she was safe. From the perusal of her cross-examination, evidence of prosecutrix is not reliable. At the time of incident she was having understanding age. She was knowing that accused was already married. 7. Medical evidence stated by P.W.8 Dr. Roshani Raut show that she examined the prosecutrix. She narrated the history of sexual intercourse on 14.09.2012, 18.10.2012, 19.10.2012 and 20.10.2012. On examination she noticed no injuries over external orifice of vagina. Her hymen was ruptured. In cross-examination she has admitted that hymen rupture was old and there is possibility that hymen might have ruptured before two years from the date of medical examination. 8. From the perusal of evidence of prosecutrix her evidence is not reliable. She has stated that accused met her on the way, but her cross-examination shows that she along with her girl friend boarded the bus went up to Gadchiroli she alone returned back at Vhyad and thereafter she proceeded along with the accused. 8. From the perusal of evidence of prosecutrix her evidence is not reliable. She has stated that accused met her on the way, but her cross-examination shows that she along with her girl friend boarded the bus went up to Gadchiroli she alone returned back at Vhyad and thereafter she proceeded along with the accused. She stated in her cross-examination that there were only two rooms, brother of accused was residing with his family in one room. The parents of accused were residing in another room. In such circumstances, it was not possible for the accused to do sexual intercourse. Prosecutrix was knowing, that accused was married with her relative. In such circumstances, that she went along with the accused because he promised to marry with her is not reliable. Learned Trial Court rightly recorded its finding. We find no merit in the appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order: O R D E R [i] Criminal Appeal No.51/2005 is dismissed. [ii] The bail bond of respondent/accused stand cancelled. [iii] R & P be sent back to the Trial Court.