JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The State has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that when the prosecutrix was working with the Department of Civil Supplies, the respondent, who was also working in the same Department, proposed to her for marriage and thereafter family members of the respondent came to the house of the prosecutrix with the proposal of marriage to the parents of the prosecutrix. The proposal of such marriage was accepted by the family members of the respondent and the prosecutrix. Both the families thereafter visited the houses of each other.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that after proposal for marriage had been accepted by both the families, the respondent pressurized the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse. Even though, the same was objected to by the prosecutrix, however, respondent told her that by then, they would be husband and wife and, therefore, there is nothing objectionable in entering into sexual intercourse as he is going to marry her shortly. Under this pretext, the respondent during that time committed sexually intercourse with her many times. It was firstly on 28.02.2015 in Hotel Hamir at Hamirpur when the prosecutrix had gone to appear in a test. Secondly, on 21.12.2015 in the store of LPG at Bhattakuffar and lastly at the same place on 09.01.2016 where the respondent had sexually harassed her during entire day.

4. Lastly, it was the case of the prosecutrix that the respondent had sexually harassed her under false pretext of marriage as marriage between them was fixed for 4th and 5th March. However, the prosecutrix came to know from reliable persons that the respondent was going to marry another lady after cheating her. She, then contacted the respondent and his family members, but the respondent refused to marry the prosecutrix besides threatening her with dire consequences.

5. It is in this background that the prosecutrix lodged a report with the first Women Police Station, B.C.S. Shimla, which resulted into registration of the FIR No. 4/2016 dated 03.03.2016 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

6. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent. Upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court framed charge against the respondent under Section 376 of IPC. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses in all. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the prosecution case. However, the respondent admitted that he was working in the same office with Civil Supplies Department having LPG Gas Agency outlet at Bhattakuffar, Shimla and got acquainted there with the prosecutrix. He submitted that he had not given any proposal to the prosecutrix for marrying her, however, prosecutrix had proposed that she would marry him and asked him to talk with her parents about marriage. He further submitted that the prosecutrix was aware about his marriage six months prior to registration of the case and in December, 2015, she had even met with the would be wife of the respondent and told her not to marry him (respondent) as she (prosecutrix) intended to marry him. He admitted that he was arrested on 03.03.2016.

8. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent.

9. It is vehemently argued by the State that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and, therefore, need to be set aside.

10. We have heard Ms. Sharmila Patial, learned Additional Advocate General and have gone through the records of the case.

11. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the case of the prosecution is one