JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants Koriya, Ambalal, Sundriya and Ramniwas have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years each under sections 3 66, 368, 376, I. P. C. It is alleged that they had abducted Mst. Jhumko PW. 1 from a field in the area of village Meldhakari on January 25, 1973. They took her to Railway station towards from where they boarded a train for going to village Kali-dhai. She was kept at the house of Jiwaniya and Ambalal for 10-15 days at Kali-dhai. It is alleged that Sundariya, Ambalal, Ramniwas and Koriya rapeq her in the said house. Jiwaoia thereafter sold her to Koriya for Rs. 600/- Koriyal took her to village Mui-ki-chhapar where she was kept for nearly five months. The police arrested Koriya on 16-9-1973. Jhumko was recovered from Koriya's house that very day. 2. The police submitted a charge-sheet against all the four appellants alleging that the age of the prosecutrix was 15 at the time of occurrence and that therefore they were guilty of offences of kidnapping and rape. 3. The prosecution has not produced any evidence worth the name regarding the age of the prosecutrix. During the trial, Dr. S. L. Agarwal, who examined the question of age of the prosecutrix with the help of X-rays of different fusions of epiphyses, testified that she was around 17-18 at the time of occurrence. The prosecutrix has herself given evidence regarding the respective ages of her younger brother and sisters. Working her age on that basis it should have been around 20 at the time of occurrence. She stated that she was married nearly 5 years before the occurrence and that manstruation had already started before her marriage. She further stated that she was 10-15 years of age at the time of her marriage. She was about 15 at that time. On that reckoning it can safely be concluded that she was around 20 at the time of occurrence. 4. The skiagraphical evidence would not militate against the conclusion arrived at above for it is recognised by all experts that the age determined on that basis is merely an approximation with a variation of nearly two years either way. 5. The prosecution did not examine the parents of the prosecutrix on the question of her age. 6. 4. The skiagraphical evidence would not militate against the conclusion arrived at above for it is recognised by all experts that the age determined on that basis is merely an approximation with a variation of nearly two years either way. 5. The prosecution did not examine the parents of the prosecutrix on the question of her age. 6. I must therefore hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. Sizing up the statement of the prosecutrix as a whole, I am left in no doubt that she went with the appellants of her own free will and resided with them for a long time without any coercion etc. on their side. 7. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Instead, the appellants are acquitted. They are already on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds.Appeal allowed. *******