JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi passed in Sessions Case No. 1/1989 on 31.3.1991 whereby he convicted the accused appellant under Section 366 I.PC. and sentenced him to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The learned trial court has considered the prosecution evidence and has come to the conclusion that offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is not made out because the prosecutrix herself has denied the fact of sexual assault on her. The prosecutrix P.W. 3 Rekha in her statement has deposed that she had gone with the accused appellant on her own volition. She had asked the accused to meet her at the bus stand. According to her all through she was willing to get associated as a companion to the accused and she has also said that in a temple the marriage was also solemnized in between her and the accused. For all this to she was a consenting party. She says that she had gone with Virendra to solemnize marriage. According to her own statement she had written to Virendra that if he would not take her with him then she will commit suicide. The document is on record of the court. In the light of the statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 3 Rekha the learned trial court found that no offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out. However, the learned trial court was of the opinion that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age, therefore, offence under Section 366 I.P.C. is made and hence convicted the accused for the said offence as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that for bringing home an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. it is necessary that the prosecutrix should be taken out of the custody for illegal purpose. Further, in the instant case, rather it appears that the girl had forced the accused appellant to take her with him because she had threatened of the consequences that she would commit suicide. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor per contra has urged that it is a case where the accused had induced the adolescent feelings of the prosecutrix and, therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant has rightly been recorded by the learned trial court. 5. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor per contra has urged that it is a case where the accused had induced the adolescent feelings of the prosecutrix and, therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant has rightly been recorded by the learned trial court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. The trial court's finding regarding age of the prosecutrix definitely shows that the prosecutrix could be marginally less than 18 years of age and, thus, not a major girl but the tenor of the statement of the girl shows that she had arrived at the age of discretion. If she had forced the accused to take her with him and such taking was intended by her to contract marriage with the accused appellant then it cannot be said that it was the act of the accused which was responsible for the girl being taken. She was not only a consenting party but was an active participant in walking out of her own home. In these circumstances it does not appear to be safe to convict the accused appellant for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal Allowed - Conviction set aside. *******