S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) IN Sessions Trial No. 147 of 1980, the present appellant and one Kailash were tried for offences under Section 366 etc. , Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 19-3-1981 acquitted accused Kailash of the charge framed against him, but convicted the appellant under Section 366 of the. Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R. I. for one year. Against that conviction and sentence the present appeal has been filed. ( 2 ) HIRAWANTI (P. W. 3) is the daughter of Manglu (P. W. 4 ). They were residing in village Sendurjana, P. S. Pandhurna. Hirawanti used to go for work at Chagoba dam, which is about more than a mile from her village. Shyamwati (P. W. 5) was also a resident of the same village. ( 3 ) THE allegation is that on 3-4-1980 while Hirawanti (P. W. 3) was returning back along with Shyamwati (P. W. 5) from Chagoba dam to her village after about Sun set, the appellant caught hold of Hirawanti and took her away to a hillock. He took her in a hut on that hillock where Mst. Pikola (P. W. 7) was also present outside the hut. According to Hirawanti, the appellant committed ntercourse with her and in the morning he went away from there. After the Sun rise, Premlal (P. W. 8) came there and took Hirawanti to her father. ( 4 ) MANGLU (P. W. 4) returned back to his house sometimes in the evening and he learnt that Hirawanti has not returned back from her work. Hirawanti was not found is the might. In the morning Premlal (P. W. 8) was deputed to bring Hirawanti. This is how Premlal had gone to that hut and brought Hirawanti. On 4. 4-1980, report Ex. P. 7 was made by Hirawanti to A. S. I. Mishra (P. W. 10) in the village. This report Ex. P. 7 was sent through a constable to the Police Station where an offence was registered on 6-4-1980. ( 5 ) HIRAWANTI was sent for medical examination. Dr. Subhash Shankergay (P. W. 1) examined Hirawanti on 6-4. 1980 and found abrasions of different dimensions on her cheeks. There was a linear abrasion over the right maxillary prominence. There were abrasions over the right temple, lateral to the right eye. ( 5 ) HIRAWANTI was sent for medical examination. Dr. Subhash Shankergay (P. W. 1) examined Hirawanti on 6-4. 1980 and found abrasions of different dimensions on her cheeks. There was a linear abrasion over the right maxillary prominence. There were abrasions over the right temple, lateral to the right eye. There were abrasions on the right side of the back also. In his opinion, the linear abrasions, one on the left cheek and the other over the right maxillary prominence were suggestive of nail marks. Some abrasions were as a result of human bit, while the others were caused by being robbed against a hard and blunt object. These injuries were simple in nature. In his examination-in-chief he stated that All injuries were less than 48 hours. Now says that they were more than 48 hours. During cross-examination he stated-It appears that the word more has been written over the word less. I cannot say who wrote the word more. The word less is in my writing. Today I cannot say whether the injuries were less or more than 48 hourst1. ( 6 ) DR. Govind Prasad Dube (P. W. 2) had taken the skia-grams of the different bones of Hirawanti. On the basis of the data that he has stated, he opined that the age of Hirawanti was between 16 to 18 years. The X-Ray plates had been sent to Dr. S K. Dube (P. W. 11) who was then in the district hospital at Chhind wara, for examination and on the basis of the data given by him he opined that the age of the girl was above 16 years and below 17 years. During cross-examination, while agreeing with the observations of Dr. Modi, he stated that There can be a difference of one to two years in age either way. ( 7 ) THE appellant in his examination pleaded false implication due to enmity with Manglu, who has tutored the witnesses against him. Kunjilal (D. W. 1) has been examined in defence. His evidence is that there was a PANCHAYAT to settle a dispute between the appellant and Manglu. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove that Hirawanti on 3-4-1980 was below 18 years of age. Kunjilal (D. W. 1) has been examined in defence. His evidence is that there was a PANCHAYAT to settle a dispute between the appellant and Manglu. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove that Hirawanti on 3-4-1980 was below 18 years of age. In the prosecution evidence, there is no other material excepting for the medical evidence on the question of age of Hirawanti. It has come in the medical evidence that there can be a vitiations of a year or two on either side in the opinion regarding age based on ossification test. This finding of the learned Session Judge is, in my opinion, well justified. ( 9 ) ON Hirawantis own showing, while appellant had caught hold of her, Shyamwati was two to three polices ahead of her. She further states that when Shyamwati objected to her being taken away and came to her rescue, the other accused Kailash ran towards her to assault. According to Hirawanti, her mouth had been pressed by the appellant. Shyamwati (P. W. 5) gave a different version. According to her when appellant caught hold of Hirawanti, the latter started weeping. Even Shyamwati did not go to help Hirawanti and ran away towards her house. She also states that she had informed Mangin that the appellant had taken Hirawanti. Manglu (P. W. 4), however, denies his having been informed by any one other than Premlal about the appellant having taken away Hirawanti. Premlal (P. W 8) does not state about his having been informed by Shyamwati, that Hirawanti had been taken away by the appellant. According to him, Manglu had come to him in the morning and had promised to pay him his lahour charges for finding out and bringing Hirawanti. One Pappa (P. W. 6) has stated that while he was sitting in Chetrams hotel he had heard shouts of a girl MAT RE-MAT RE, which were coming from towards Sendurjana. According to him the shouts were that of Hirawanti. This witness was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The finding, as it is, is based on voice identification. Neither Hirawanti nor Shyamwati stated about Hirawantis having raised any shouts. Tt is, therefore, apparent that there are material contradictions with regard to the manner to which Hirawanti was allegedly taken away by the appellant from that place. This witness was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The finding, as it is, is based on voice identification. Neither Hirawanti nor Shyamwati stated about Hirawantis having raised any shouts. Tt is, therefore, apparent that there are material contradictions with regard to the manner to which Hirawanti was allegedly taken away by the appellant from that place. ( 10 ) THIS apart, Mst. Pikola (P. W. 7) has stated that the appellant had brought Hirawanti to the hut. Hirawanti, on seeing her started weeping and sat inside the hut. The appellant had been persuading Hirawanti to take her food not she did not take and was weeping. She further stated that for the whole night, she, appellant and Hirawanti kept awake and in. the morning she went away in the jungle leaving the appellant and Hirawanti in the hut. In cross-examination, she has tried to help the appellant by saying that she could not identify as to who the boy and the girl were as her eye sight is very weak. Leaving aside this question, the, fact remains that Hirawanti did not make any grievance to Mst. Pikola. a woman aged about 58 years against the appellant. Mst. Pikola even otherwise does not appear to be a truthful witness. There were many abrasions on the body of Hirawanti and the possibility is that they were caused in that night, in all likelihood, by the appellant. Her version that she appellant and Hirawanti kept awake for the whole night is patently a falsehood. When Premlal had reached there in the morning, Hirawanti came near him and started weeping. She told Premlal that she does not want to live with the appellant and would accompany him. According to Premlal, even the appellant was present at that time, which falsifies the statement of Mst. Pikola about the appellant having already left in the morning. There is nothing in the evidence of Premlal (P. W. 8) to indicate that Hirawanti made a complaint to him about the appellant having forcibly brought her. ( 11 ) HIRAWANTI in cross-examination has stated that she had made a grievance about the appellant having forcibly brought her to Mst. Pikola (P. W. 7), but that does not stand corroborated. Hirawanti was a village rustic and was working as a lahourer in a dam. There is nothing to show that she had in any manner resisted her accompanying the appellant. Pikola (P. W. 7), but that does not stand corroborated. Hirawanti was a village rustic and was working as a lahourer in a dam. There is nothing to show that she had in any manner resisted her accompanying the appellant. There is no such conduct on her part which could in any manner corroborate her version that she was forcibly taken away by the appellant to that hut in that night. The abrasions etc. that have been found on Hirawanti's body certainly were not of the time when the appellant wanted to take her away from the way. In the circumstances, the possibility of her being a consenting party in accompanying the appellant cannot be ruled out. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to a benefit of doubt. ( 12 ) CONSEQUEATLY, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged and he need not surrender to them. .