Short Note : 1. Appellant had been convicted under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Held: Tejkumari (P.W. 8) deposed that while returning from the school on the date of the incident, the accused met her on the way and she accompanied him to Sendhwa. She does not depose about any force having been used to compel her to accompany the accused. She has admitted letters Ex. D-l to 14 written to the accused by her expressing her love towards him. She has further deposed that when she had boarded the bur along with the accused for journey to Sendhwa she had ample opportunity to runaway if she had desired to do so. In view of all these evidences learned counsel for the appellant was right in contending that the prosecutrix had willfully accompanied the accused and boarded the bus from Khargone The trial Court has however, held the accused guilty of an offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the prosecutrix was proved to be below 18 years. As regards age, the only evidence relied upon by the trial Court is that of Dr. Chhatarsingh (P. W. 6), the Assistant Surgeon, who gave an opinion on the basis of X-ray report that the age of. the prosecutrix was between 17 to 18 years. Learned counsel for the State fairly conceded that in the circumstances of this ease, from the evidence of Dr. Chhatarsingh (P.W.6) alone it cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was, below 18 years of age, On the date of incident. The conviction of the accused under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code cannot in these circumstances be sustained in law. Appeal allowed.