JUDGMENT M.M. Lal, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.6.81 passed by Sri S.N. Prasad, the then Second Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar by which he has convicted Rishi Pal appellant under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo five years R.I. and 7 years R.I. respectively admit. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, as may be briefly stated, on the morning of 17.3.78 when Km. Munni at about 9.00 a.m. had gone out of her house to ease herself she was kidnapped or abducted by the appellant Rishipal. At first the appellant had tried to persuade Km.Munni to accompany him to see a picture in the cinema but when she declined she was threatened and taken along with him. Km. Munni was taken by the appellant to different places. She was ultimately recovered by the police from the custody of the appellant on 28.3.78. During this period the appellant is said to have raped repeatedly Km. Munni. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Saheb Dei the mother of Km. Munni, P.W. 2 Sukkher, P.W. 3 Mahabir, P.W. 4 Km. Munni besides the doctors and the Investigating Officer. 4. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the case of the prosecution. He further stated that there was love affair between him and Km. Munni and that the latter by way of her own will and free consent had come to his house and had started living with him. 5. The learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that Km. Munni was aged about 18-19 years at the time, of occurrence. He, however, believed the remaining evidence of the prosecution and convicted the appellant under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C.and sentenced him accordingly as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Government Advocate and have also perused the record carefully. 7. After examining the evidence of P.W. 6 Lady Doctor S. Khanna who had examined Km. Munni and P.W. 7 Dr. D.C. Mohar, Radiologist, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the age of Km. Munni at the time of incident was 18-19 years. She was thus major at the time of occurrence. 8. 7. After examining the evidence of P.W. 6 Lady Doctor S. Khanna who had examined Km. Munni and P.W. 7 Dr. D.C. Mohar, Radiologist, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the age of Km. Munni at the time of incident was 18-19 years. She was thus major at the time of occurrence. 8. The only point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the appellant had taken away Km. Munni forcibly and had committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly as alleged by the prosecution. 9. Besides producing the Investigating Officer and the doctors in this case the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Smt. Saheb Dei, P.W. 2 Sukkher, P.W. 3 Mahabir and P.W. Km. Munni. P.W. 2 Sukkher and P.W. 3 Mahabir are the witnesses who had seen Km. Munni going with the appellant on the morning of 17.3.78. They have not stated that the appellant was taking Km. Munni along with him by force etc. On the other hand according to the two witnesses both the appellant and Km. Munni were going calmly. There is nothing in their evidence to indicate that the appellant had exercised any force against Km. Munni. As regards P.W. 1 Smt. Saheb Dei who is also not a witness either of abduction or rape. The appellant is not alleged to have done anything in her presence. On the other hand, the conduct of P.W. 1 Smt. Saheb Dei in lodging the first information report after an undue delay suggests that she was not alarmed by the disappearance of her daughter because otherwise she would have sought help and protection of the police and would have lodged the report at the earliest. Her conduct in keeping silence for long time also suggests that probably Km. Munni had gone with the appellant who belongs to the same village, due to love affairs. It may be noted that whereas this incident is alleged to have taken place on 17.3.78 the first information report was lodged as late as on 28.3.78. 10. In fact the fate of this case revolves around the evidence of Km. Munni P.W. 4 because she is the only witness who can possibly tell as to whether the appellant had subjected her to any force either at the time of taking her away or at the time of committing sexual intercourse. 10. In fact the fate of this case revolves around the evidence of Km. Munni P.W. 4 because she is the only witness who can possibly tell as to whether the appellant had subjected her to any force either at the time of taking her away or at the time of committing sexual intercourse. According to the own case of the prosecution Km. Munni P.W. 4 had stayed with the appellant from 17.3.78 to 28.3.78 when she was recovered. During the said period of 11 days Km. Munni was roaming about with the appellant. They had gone to different places. They had stayed in Dharamshala. She had also gone to cinema house with the appellant. She had also travelled with' the appellant in a bus. Obviously there were very many opportunities either to run away or at least to raise a noise if she was not awilling party. The medical evidence reveals that there was not even a scratch on her body. 11. From the facts and circumstances of this case I am convicted that Km. Munni was a willing party and she had not been subjected to any deceipt or force. The case against the appellant under Section 366, I.P.C. or under Section 376, I.P.C. was not made out" and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. It may be noted that the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge on 25.6.81. The appellant must have been in the ordinary course already released from jail. 13. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentences of Rishipal appellant under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. are hereby se1, aside; Unless required under some other process of law Rishi Pal, appellant, shall be released from jail forthwith, if already not released.