JUDGMENT : P.K. Patra, J. - The Petitioner stands convicted under Sections 366/376, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years on each count; the sentences, however, to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution is that in the early morning of 31.5.1985, Dhanaphul (P.W. 13) was in her house. Her neighbour Jasoda came and asked her to accompany to attend call of nature. Accordingly both of them went towards the roadside for the purpose. At that time, the Petitioner along with one Alekha, Sura, Chala gagged P.W. 13's mouth and the Petitioner took her in a cycle to Sabalpur. He kept her inside a room at Gungutipada belonging to his relative and locked the room from out side. In the evening the Petitioner came and opened the door and committed sexual intercourse with her. A missing report was filed by her father (P.W. 1) on 18.6.1985 and the girl was recovered. 3. Plea of the Petitioner was one of denial. 4. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1, the father of the girl P.W. 13 turned hostile. He stated that he traced and brought his daughter from Gungutipada, Sambalpur, where she was kept in the house of one Kishore. P.W. 3 is the mother of P.W. 13. 4. She has stated that her daughter's age was 16 years at the time of occurrence. She has not deposed anything against the Petitioner. P.W. 4 merely stated that he saw the Petitioner and P.W. 13. P.Ws. 5, 7,8, 9, 10 and 11 denied their knowledge about the occurrence. P.W. 6 merely stated that he found the Petitioner and P.W. 13 taken by the police. P.W. 12 was the doctor who examined P.W. 13 on 19.6.1985. On her examination he did not find anything to say that P.W. 13 was sexually assaulted. P.W. 14 is the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine Department, V.S.S. Medical College. P.W. 15 is the Investigating Officer. 5. P.W. 13 is the prime witnesses. She stated that the Petitioner took her in a cycle and kept her inside a room belonging to his relative at Gungutipada, Sambalpur. She stayed their for about 14 to 15 days and the Petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with her during the aforesaid period. He premised to marry her and kept her as wife. She stated that the Petitioner took her in a cycle and kept her inside a room belonging to his relative at Gungutipada, Sambalpur. She stayed their for about 14 to 15 days and the Petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with her during the aforesaid period. He premised to marry her and kept her as wife. The fact that she remained with the Petitioner for about 14 to 15 days without raising any protest indicates that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. On careful perusal of her evidence, I am of the opinion that No. case under Sections 366/376, I.P.C. has been made out against the Petitioner. 6. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 366/376, I.P.C. against the Petitioner are set aside. He is acquitted of the charges. The revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed