JUDGMENT :

These two appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2018 in Sessions Case No.71/2017 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short).

2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the complainant has filed Criminal Appeal No.100128/2018 under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short). On the other hand, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.100184/2018 under Sections 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their rank before the Trial Court and also the complainant is referred to as prosecutrix.

4. Since these two appeals are arising out of the same judgment and order, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The allegations against the accused are that on 23.01.2016, the accused took the complainant near Channammanakere which is situated by the side of Navalgund Annigeri road and with a promise to marry her, he had sexual intercourse with her and subsequently refused to marry her and thereby cheated her and committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC.

6. After conducting detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the accused. Charge is framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC and he has denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.

7. In support of the prosecution case, 18 witnesses are examined as P.Ws.1 to 18 and Exs.P-1 to 20 are marked. No material objects are marked for the prosecution.

8. During the course of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating material against him. He has not chosen to lead any evidence on his behalf. No documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

9. After hearing the arguments, vide the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of all the charges by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

10. During the course of their argument, the learned counsel representing the complainant/prosecutrix as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record and required to be reconsidered. They have further submitted that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix, who has clearly stated that the accused deceived her and by promising to marry her, extracted her consent and committed sexual intercourse and subsequently refused to marry her and thereby committed the offences alleged against him. They have further submitted that the parents, brother and some of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the medial evidence is also corroborating the version of the prosecutrix. With this material, it is a fit case to convict the accused and pray to allow the appeal and pass appropriate orders.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the accused submitted that having regard to the fact that at the time of the alleged offences, the prosecutrix was a major and having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused. He submitted that at the most, it is the case of prosecutrix being a consenting party and there is no question of extracting her consent under a promise to marry and that the accused had no intention of fulfilling that promise and prays to dismiss the appeal.

12. We have heard the learned counsel representing the appellant i.e., complainant – prosecutrix in Criminal Appeal No.100128/2018 and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor in Criminal