JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant-complainant has preferred instant criminal appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against impugned Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 07/2013 (State of Rajasthan vs. Vinod Kumar Jangid @ Bablu & anr.), whereby accused-respondents have been acquitted of offences under Sections 366 & 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case in short are that the prosecutrix (P.W.1) submitted the written report (Ex.P/1) before the Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur, wherein allegation was levelled that she was acquainted with Vijay Jangid since her school time. On 15.02.2012, when she was standing at the Bus Stand of Maharani College, at that time, Vinod came there in Indica car and asked to drop her at her house, upon which, she sat in his car. He took her to his house, where his both wives and 1-2 others were present. He made her to consume intoxicated substance in the cold drink and obtained her signatures on blank paper under conspiracy. He took her at Arya Samaj, Pratap Nagar and made a drama of marrying her. On 21.02.2012, he again got signed certain typed papers and started blackmailing her. On being harassed, she told him that she will tell about this to her family members. On 22.08.2012, when she was standing at Maharani College Bus Stand, Vinod and his father Madan came in a vehicle and stopped near her and made her to sit in the car. He took her to Badher, Alwar from Sindhi Camp Bus Stand, where he kept her for two days. On 24.08.2012, he took her to a village in Sikar and then Dataramgarh. On 26.08.2012, he took her to an unknown village near Dataramgarh, where brother of Vinod, namely, Manoj was already present. Vinod and his brother Manoj forcibly committed rape upon her and on protest being made, Manoj Jangid beaten her. Manoj also sntached her earrings, one chain, nose ring. On 27.08.2012, Manoj and Vinod came to Jaipur to bring her to Mumbai but she escaped from jaipur Bus Stand etc. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No.1292012 was registered for the offences under Sections 376, 366, 406 & 120-B of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. Manoj also sntached her earrings, one chain, nose ring. On 27.08.2012, Manoj and Vinod came to Jaipur to bring her to Mumbai but she escaped from jaipur Bus Stand etc. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No.1292012 was registered for the offences under Sections 376, 366, 406 & 120-B of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After investigation, police submitted charge- sheet against accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 366 & 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 24.01.2015 acquitting accused- respondents for the alleged offences. Hence, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-complainant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the evidence adduced on record, it has been established that accused-respondents kidnapped the prosecutrix with intent to marry her and forcibly subjected her to sexual assault. The prosecution story has been duly corroborated from testimony deposed by prosecution witnesses and medical evidence. But the trial court has erred in not rightly evaluating the evidence on record and passed the judgment impugned acquitting accused- respondents for the offences alleged against them. He has, therefore, prays that this criminal appeal may be allowed and the accused-respondents may be convicted and sentenced for the offences charged against them suitably. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has prayed for passing appropriate orders in this case. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents while supporting judgment impugned has submitted that from the evidence available on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubt. He has also submitted that prosecutrix being major voluntarily left her parents house and accompanied the respondents. The trial court after appreciating entire evidence on record has rightly passed the judgment, which does not warrant any interference. Therefore, he has prayed that this criminal appeal filed by the appellant-complainant may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced at Bar and have gone through impugned judgment and record of the trial court. 8. In the instant case, the prosecution has come with the case that accused-respondents kidnapped the prosecutrix with intention to marry and sexually assaulted her. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced at Bar and have gone through impugned judgment and record of the trial court. 8. In the instant case, the prosecution has come with the case that accused-respondents kidnapped the prosecutrix with intention to marry and sexually assaulted her. A perusal of the record reveals that in the case in hand, it is not in dispute that prosecutrix being 18 years of age at the time of incident was major. This factum would be fortified from the written report (Ex.P/1) submitted by the prosecutrix, wherein her age has been mentioned as 18 years 11 months. A perusal of the written report (Ex.P/1) would show that incident of kidnapping of prosecutrix was stated to have taken place on 22.08.2012 and the written report was submitted on 12.09.2012. However, a perusal of the Missing Person Report (Ex.P/8) would show that prior to submission of written report (Ex.P/1), father of the prosecutrix has submitted the report regarding missing of his daughter since 22.08.2012. A perusal of Ex.D/9 i.e. statement of the prosecutrix recorded in MPR, reveals that during the course of enquiry, her statement was recorded by the police, wherein she did not level any allegation against the accused-respondents, rather, she admitted that she voluntarily went with Vinod and solemnized marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir. The photographs of marriage have also been placed on record as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5. A perusal of the Ex.D/6 - complaint reveals that the prosecutrix herself submitted a complaint before the Police Commissioner, Jaipur South, wherein also, she did not level any allegation against accused-respondents, rather, she admitted that since her parents were adamant to get her married to someone else, therefore, she left her parent's house and solemnized marriage with Vinod Kumar. In the said complaint, she also raised apprehension of danger to her life at the hands of her parents and relatives. It is also pertinent to note here that during enquiry in MPR (Ex.P/8), father of the prosecutrix (P.W. 2) submitted an application (Ex.D/26) before the Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur seeking to close missing person's report regarding his daughter stating that he had lodged the MPR on 23.08.2012 but now he come to know that she had gone to visit along with her school friend and had returned back to home, therefore, he did not want further proceedings in the MPR. A perusal of Ex.D/8 - application dated 28.08.2012 also reveals that prosecutrix herself moved application before the Police Station Shipra Path for not taking any action on the report submitted by her. In the said application, she has stated that she had voluntarily gone to visit along with Vinod Kumar Jangid and now she had returned to her parent's house and did not want to marry Vinod and nor want to reside with him. Thus, from the documentary evidence which has come on record, it reveals that the prosecution has not been able to prove its story that prosecutrix was kidnapped and forcibly subjected to sexual assault by the accused-respondents beyond all reasons doubt. 9. Now adverting to prosecution story regarding subjecting the victim to sexual assault by accused-respondents, a perusal of the statement of prosecutrix (P.W. 1) reveals that she in her examination-in-chief has admitted that accused-respondent - Vinod took her to his sister's house in Alwar, where they stayed for two days. Thereafter, he took her to his aunt's house, and then house of his brother-in-law in Dataramgarh, where they stayed for a night. On 27.08.2012, he brought her to Jaipur. Thus, from perusal of the statement of prosecutrix (P.W. 1), it has been established that she had visited various places with accused- respondents and travelled in different conveyance and stayed at different places but neither she made any complaint nor raised any alarm and nor tried to escape from the custody of accused. In the opinion of this Court, if the prosecutrix was forcibly kidnapped ad subject to sexual assault by the accused, then she would have certainly resisted and informed about incident to the persons available at those places, which was not done by the victim. P.W. 4 - Dr. Shanta Lakhani in her cross-examination has admitted that she did not find marks of resistance either on the body or private parts of the prosecutrix. Thus, from the evidence available on record, the prosecution has not been able to establish the prosecution story and the fact that prosecutrix was forcibly subjected to sexual assault by accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the trial court after appreciation of entire evidence on record has rightly passed judgment and order dated 24.01.2015 acquitting accused- respondents for the charges alleged against them, which does not warrant any interference. 11. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the trial court after appreciation of entire evidence on record has rightly passed judgment and order dated 24.01.2015 acquitting accused- respondents for the charges alleged against them, which does not warrant any interference. 11. Consequently, this criminal revision petition is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 24.01.2015 passed by the trial court is affirmed. 12. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith.