Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants against the Judgment and order dated 26-2-1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 13/99 by which he acquitted the accused Anna Kunwar and Prem Kunwar of the charge for the offence under Section 376/114, I.P.C. and alsoacquitted accused-appellant Arjun Singh of the charges for the offence under Sections 366 and 363, I.P.C. and also acquitted accused-appellants Kishan Singh and Onkar Singh of the charge for the offence under Section 363, I.P.C., but convicted the present accused-appellants Kishan Singh and Onkar Singh of the charge for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and Arjun Singh of the charge for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced them in the following manner:--Name of accused- appellantsConvicted under section Sectence awarded 1. Kishan Singh 2. Onkar Singh 3. Arjun Singh Five years RI and to pay fine of Rs , /-1,000 . in 366, IPC 376, IPC default of payment of fine, of further undergo six months RI Ten years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year RI. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: -Name of accused- appellants Convicted under Sentence awarded section On 31-10-1998 at about 5.30 p.m., P.W. 3, Santosh Kunwar w/o Amar Singh (P.W. 4) lodged a written report Ex. P/2 in the Police Station Goverdhan vilas District Udaipur stating inter alia that P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) is her sister and she came to her village Matun on 20-10-1998. It was further stated in the report that on 29-10-1998 at about 7.00 p.m., accused-appellant Kishan Singh came to her house and told her that her mother Bhanwar Kunwar, who was residing at Bheem, was not feeling well and her mother had called pro secutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar. It was further stated in the report that accused-appellant Kishan Singh further told that her Tau accused-appellant Onkar Singh) would also go to Bheem by vehicle at 8.00 p.m. and placing reliance on accused-appellant Kishan Singh, P.W. 3 Santosh Kunwar sent prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar with him and at the time when prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar was sent with accused-appellant Kishan Singh, her mother-in-law Gulab Kunwar and Jethani kailash Kunwar were also there. It was further stated in the report that she had come to know that both accused appellants Kishan Singh and Onkar Singh did not take prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar to Bheem, but they took her to village Tanna Bhagal, where prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar was compelled to marry with accused-appellant Arjun Singh and at that time, prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar was only 13 years of age and thus, she was minor. It was further stated in the report that prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar was compelled to marry with accused-appellant Arjun Singh against her will. On this report, police registered the ease and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/3 and started investigation. During investigation, prosecutrix P.W, 1 Manju Kunwar was got medically examined by P.W. 2 Dr. G.L. Dad and her medical examination report is Ex. P/i. The accused-appellants Onkar Singh and Arjun Singh were arrested on 15-11-1998 through arrest memos Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/8 respectively and accused-appellant Kishan Singh was arrested on 15-12-1998 through arrest memo Ex, P/9. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the present accused-appellants and two more accused, namely, Anna Kunwar and Prem Kunwar in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 22-1-1999, the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur framed charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.PC. against the accused-appellant Arjun Singh; for the offence under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. against the accused-appellants Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh; and for the offence under Section 376/114, .I.P.C. against accused Prem Kunwar and Anna Kunwar. The charges were read over and explained to all the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses and got exhibited some documents, Thereafter, statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded. In defence, no evidence was led by the accused. The charges were read over and explained to all the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses and got exhibited some documents, Thereafter, statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded. In defence, no evidence was led by the accused. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge through his Judgment and order dated 26-2-1999 acquitted the accused Anna Kunwar and Prem Kunwar of the charge for the offence under Section 376/114, .I.P.C. and alsoacquitted accused-appellant Arjun Singh of the charges for the offence under Sections 366 and 363, I.P.C. and also acquitted accused-appellants Kishan Singh and Onkar Singh of the charge for the offence under Section 363, I.P.C., but convicted the present accused-appellants Kishan Singh and Onkar Singh of the charge for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and Arjun Singh of the charge for the offence under Section 376, “I.P.C. and sentenced them in the manner as indicated above. Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order dated 26-2-1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, this appeal has been filed by the present accused-appellants. 3. In this appeal, the only submission which has been raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that from the statement of the pro secutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar herself , no case of rape as well as abduction is made out and all accused-appellants are entitled to acquittal. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned Judgment and order dated 26-2-1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 6. Toappreciate the above contention, first medical evidence has to be seen and especially the age of the pro secutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar has to be determined, as in the report Ex. P/i, her age has been determined as 17 years. 7. P.W, 2 Dr. G.L. Dad has been examined to prove the medical examination re-port Ex. P/i of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar and he has stated that on 2-11-1998 he was Medical Jurist at Udaipur and he examined prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar to ascertain whether rape was committed with her 01 not and furthermore, to ascertain her age. P.W, 2 Dr. G.L. Dad has been examined to prove the medical examination re-port Ex. P/i of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar and he has stated that on 2-11-1998 he was Medical Jurist at Udaipur and he examined prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar to ascertain whether rape was committed with her 01 not and furthermore, to ascertain her age. He has given the report Ex, P/l, where lie has stated that during examination of prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar, he did not find any sort of injury on her person and furthermore, he came to the conclusion that her age was about 17 years. He has further stated in his cross-examination that her age might be above 18 years. 8. Thus, from the statement of P.W. 2 Dr. G.L. Dad, it is very well proved that at the time of alleged incident, she was about 18 years of age and this aspect of statement of P.W. 2 Dr. G.L. Dad appears to be correct one especially when there is no school certificate or age certificate by which this medical evidence can be rebutted. Thus, in absence of evidence of school certificate or age certificate, this medical evidence in respect of age can be relied upon. 9. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that following is the relationship of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar with two accused-appellants, namely, Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh: -- Name of accused-appellant Relationship with prosecutrix PW 1 Manju Devi 1. Onkar Singh Tau 2. Kishan Singh Cousin brother 10. Theaccused-appellants Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh have been convicted for the offence under Section 366 and accused-appellant Arjun Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. 11. Tosee whether the findings of conviction of accused-appellants Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and Arjun Singh for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. are correct one or not, the evidence, which is found in the statement of prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar has to be seen. 12. 11. Tosee whether the findings of conviction of accused-appellants Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and Arjun Singh for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. are correct one or not, the evidence, which is found in the statement of prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar has to be seen. 12. P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar has stated in her examination-in-chief that her cousin brother Kishan Singh, accused-appellant came to her house and after making a proxy that her mother was ill, he took her on motor cycle and, thereafter, he left her near the Sewashram Chauraya, where accused-appellants Arjun Singh and Onkar Singh were waiting for them. Thereafter, they took her to Bus Stand in a tempo and they all sat in the Bus and went Dabok and from Dabok, they went to Nabra Magra and on 30-10-1998, she was taken to the Village Tanna and from Tanna she was taken to Tanna Ki Bhagal, where she was asked to marry with accused-appellant Arjun Singh and she was made bride by accused Anna Bai and Prem Bai and after marriage, in the night, she was put in one room, where accused-appellant Arjun Singh came and committed rape with her. In cross-examination, she has admitted the following facts: - 1. That she did not make any hue and cry in the Bus and even at Dabok Chauraya. 2. That in early morning of 30-10-1998 she took breakfast and started for Bheem. 3. That she did not tell to anybody at Tanna that she was to go Bheem, but accused-appellants took her to Tanna. .4. That she went on foot to the Tanna Ki Bhagal and at Tanna Ki Bhagwal, she was allowed to marry with accused-appellant Arjun Singh and she was compelled to wear the marriage clothes. 1. Onkar Singh Tau 2. Kishan Singh Cousin brother 5. That ornaments were also given to her. 6. That the fact that accused-appellant Arjun Singh torn her clothes in the room was not mentioned by her before the police. 7. That no injury on resistance was found on her back. 8. That it is correct to say that on 3 1-10-1998 she remained for whole day in the house of accused-appellant Arjun Singh. 9. That on 1-11-1998 when her Jeeja P,W, 4 Amar Singh came, she was in the room of accused-appellant Arjun Singh. 10. 7. That no injury on resistance was found on her back. 8. That it is correct to say that on 3 1-10-1998 she remained for whole day in the house of accused-appellant Arjun Singh. 9. That on 1-11-1998 when her Jeeja P,W, 4 Amar Singh came, she was in the room of accused-appellant Arjun Singh. 10. That it is correct to say that in case her sister P.W. 3 Santosh, her Jeeja P.W. 4 Amar Singh and her mother Bhanwar Kunwar would have not known about the incident, no report would have been lodged. 13. In my opinion, looking to the above statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar, it does not appear that she was forcibly kidnapped by accused-appellants Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh and, therefore, she was compelled to marry with accused-appellant Arjun Singh against her will. It also does not appear that accused-appellant Arjuri Singh had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar against her wil 14. Thelearned Sessions Judge, Udaipur has given the finding that accused-appellant Arjun Singh had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju against her will. In my opinion, this finding cannot be accepted, in view of the statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar, which has been just quoted above and especially looking to the fact that she remained in the company of the accused-appellants for three days and two accused-appellants, namely, Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh are her close relatives and during the course ofjourney, she did not make any hue and ciy and she remained in the company of accused-appellant Arjun Singh for two days as his wife and had sexual intercourse with him and when her Jeeja P.W. 4 Amar Singh came there, she was found in the room of accused-appellant Arjun Singh. 15. The fact that had her Jeeja P.W. 4 Amar Singh and her sister P.W. 5 Santosh would have not known about the incident of her marriage with accused-appellant Arjun Singh, the report would have not been lodged, goes to show that she was not at all aggrieved with this marriage and if anybody was aggrieved with this marriage, it was her sister P.W. 3 Santosh and her Jeeja P.W. 4 Amar Singh and that is why, the report was lodged by P.W. 3 Santosh. 16. 16. Keeping the above aspect in mind, it cannot be said that prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar was compelled, threatened or otherwise induced to go with accused-appellants against her will. The absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar is yet another fact to negative the allegation of rape and to show that accused-appellant Arjun Singh had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with her tacit consent. The medical evidence, in the present case, clearly discloses that pro secutrix did not appear to have put up any resistance at the time when accused-appellant Arjuri Singh had sex with her. From this, the only irresistible inference can be that the pro secutrix was a consenting party which would be reinforced by other circumstances in the present case. 17. Thus, from every point of view, statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar that she was forcibly first kidnapped and, thereafter, she was compelled to marry with accused-appellant Arjun Singh against her will and accused-appellant Arjuri Singh had sexual intercourse with her against her will, cannot be accepted and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur convicting accused-appellants Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and Arjun Singh for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. are liable to be set aside and they are entitled to acquittal. 18. Before parting with this Judgment , it may be stated here that in this appeal, a compromise arrived at between both the parties was filed. Since the alleged offences for which the accused-appellants were convicted are not compoundable, therefore, this compromise would not be helpful. However, the so-called compromise also goes to prove one thing that prosecutrix P.W. 1 Manju Kunwar was consenting party to all activities, which have taken place in the present case. The learned counsel for the complainant has also supported this compromise. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that :- 1. Thisappeal filed by the accused-appellants Arjun Singh, Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh is allowed and the Judgment and order dated 26-2-1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur convicting and sentencing accused-appellants Onkar Singh, Kishan Singh for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and Arjun Singh for the offence Under Section 376, I.P.C. are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. 2. 2. Since the accused-appellant Arjuri Singh is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 3. Since the accused appellants Onkar Singh and Kishan Singh are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.