Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Piaso Kumari (PW 5) had illicit connection with the appellant, Ram Lal Mahto and the appellant used to assure her that he would marry her and on this assurance they were having physical relation and as a result of which the informant (PW 5) became pregnant. It has been further stated that when pregnancy was of eight months, she informed her parents. Thereafter a Panchayati was held and she narrated all the story before Panch as. The Panchas asked the appellant to marry her but the appellant totally refused. Thereafter, the informants father, brother and one Lachu Mahto caught hold of the appellant and brought him to the police station and lodged the FIR against him. After completion of Investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. Thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial and subsequently the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 7 witnesses including the informant (PW 5). PW 1 is Mithoo Mahto, PW 2 is Kalicharan Mahto, PW 3 is Lachu Mahto, PW 4 is Gameshwar Mahto, PW 5 is Piaso Kumari (informant) PW 6, Dr. Usha Sinha, has examined the victim girl. PW7 Sheoji Pandey, is a formal witness who has proved Ext. 1/1. 5. Out of seven witness PWs 1, 2 and 3 have fully supported the factum that the informant (PW 5) Piaso Kumari had illicit connection with the appellant. Ram Lal Mahto and out of their relation the victim girl, Piaso Kumari, was having a pregnancy. 6. The informant (PW 5) herself has stated that she has love affairs with the appellant, Ram Lal Mahto, and they were having sexual relation. She has further stated that when, she got pregnancy she asked the appellant to marry her. Ram Lal Mahto and out of their relation the victim girl, Piaso Kumari, was having a pregnancy. 6. The informant (PW 5) herself has stated that she has love affairs with the appellant, Ram Lal Mahto, and they were having sexual relation. She has further stated that when, she got pregnancy she asked the appellant to marry her. On his assurance she was allowing him to have regular sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that when the pregnancy was of eight months, she requested the appellant to marry her but he declined to do so, then only she informed her parents about her pregnancy. Thereafter a Panchayati was held. She narrated the story before the Panchas who accordingly in turn asked the appellant to marry her. But the appellant totally denied and thereafter he was taken to the police station by the family members of the informant and a case was registered. The victim girl was examined by the doctor on 22nd May, 1985 on request of the police. After lodging of the case a female child was born to her. 7. PW 6, the Doctor has examined the victim girl on 22-5-1985. She has opined that the victim was having pregnancy of eight months. She has also proved her medical report (Ext. 2), written by her. According to Ext. 2 the Doctor has estimated the age of the victim girl to be 17/ 19 years and as such she was a major at the time of occurrence. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the victim girl was major girl of more than 18 years and the alleged sexual relation between the victim and the appellant was with the consent of the parties and in this case, the consent cannot be termed as given under gear or misconception as such offence under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted against the appellant. He has relied upon a decision reported in Mir Wali Mohammad Kalu V/s. State of Bihar. He has also relied upon a decision reported in Jayanti Ravi Pande V/s. State of West Bengal. 9. This case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments which has been cited by the counsel for the appellant. He has relied upon a decision reported in Mir Wali Mohammad Kalu V/s. State of Bihar. He has also relied upon a decision reported in Jayanti Ravi Pande V/s. State of West Bengal. 9. This case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments which has been cited by the counsel for the appellant. In the aforesaid decisions it has been held that if a full grown up girl consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues to indulge in such activity until she becomes pregnant it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by, misconception of fact. Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be called in the aid in such a case to pardon the act of the girl and fasten criminal liability on the other unless the Court can be assured that from the very inception the accused never really intended to marry her. In the present case the victim girl was aged about 18 years of age had indulged in sexual act apprehending therein that she might conceive as well as thus procured promise from the appellant to marry or keep her. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the aforesaid decisions I find that the offence under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted against the appellant and he deserves acquittal. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him and is free from the liability of the bail bond. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.