JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions case No. 1/98 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner convicted, the accused appellant Murli for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo 3 months. S.I. and by the same judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner has acquitted the accused appellant Murli and another accused Sushil for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120B I.P.C. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) P.W. 2 Mool Singh lodged an oral report in Police Station Naya Shahar, Dist. Bikaner on 30.9.97 at 2 a.m. stating inter alga that he was driver and on 27.9.97, he went to Ravla and Khajuwala for doing his job and when he reached house in night at 8.30 p.m. he was informed by his wife P.W. 3 Umrao Kanwar that at about 3 p.m., her daughter P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar (hereinafter referred to 'as the prosecutrix') was at the house and thereafter she was not found in the house. It was further stated in the report that the accused appellant Murli who lived near their house in M.P. Colony used to come to their house and on being searched, he was also not found in the house and another accused Sushil who also used to live with accused appellant Murli told that there was possibility that P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar and accused appellant both had gone to Gaziabad. It is further stated in the report that the accused appellant had taken away P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar after enticing her. (ii) On this report, the police registered an FIR Ex. P/6 and started investigation. (iii) During investigation, medical examination of P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar was got conducted by Dr. O.P. Saini, P.W. 6 in respect of her age as well as for commission of rape. P.W. 9 Dr. Satish Kachhawaha has opined the age of prosecutrix between 17 to 19 years. 3. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused appellant as well as against accused Sushil. 4. O.P. Saini, P.W. 6 in respect of her age as well as for commission of rape. P.W. 9 Dr. Satish Kachhawaha has opined the age of prosecutrix between 17 to 19 years. 3. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused appellant as well as against accused Sushil. 4. On 23.3.99, charges for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 1203 I.P.C. were framed against the accused appellant Murli and charges for 30 offences under Sections 363, 366 and 1203 I.P.C. were framed against the accused Sushil. Both of them denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During trial, as many as 9 witnesses were produced by the prosecution. Thereafter the statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and some documents have been produced in defence. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner after conclusion of the trial vide his judgment and order dated 1.8.2000 acquitted accused Sushi' of all the charges and he also acquitted appellant Murli of the charges for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120B I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. as stated above inter alia holding : (i) that the age of prosecutrix on the date of occurrence was more than 18 years and thus, he acquitted both the accused for offence under Section 363 I.PC. on this ground alone. (ii) that the statements of PW. 1 Bina Kanwar that she took tea under the influence of accused appellant is not correct one. (iii) that the case of prosecution that P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar was abducted by the accused appellant has not been accepted and the case of prosecution under Section 366 I.P.C. was not found to be established against the accused appellant. (iv) that the statement of P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar that she was raped in Mukta Prasad Colony, Bikaner by the accused appellant has not been found to be established. (v) that it has been found to be proved that accused appellant 1 raped Bina Kanwar at Gaziabad and for this act the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. 7. That aggrieved from the said judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Murli. (v) that it has been found to be proved that accused appellant 1 raped Bina Kanwar at Gaziabad and for this act the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. 7. That aggrieved from the said judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Murli. The following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant : (i) That when the learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that no offence under Sections 363 and 366 I.PC. is made out against the appellant and further more when he has come to the to conclusion that no rape was committed at Bikaner by the accused appellant and when so many letters which have been exhibited as Ex. D/2 to D/17 were written by P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar, the prosecutrix to the accused appellant, then the finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge that accused appellant committed rape on her at Gaziabad is absolutely perverse and contrary to facts and circumstances and is liable to be set aside. It is, therefore, prayed on behalf of the accused appellant that the accused be acquitted of the charges for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. also. 8. On the contrary, the learned public prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that no interference is called for in the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. To appreciate the above contentions, the evidence has to be looked into. There is no dispute on the point that P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar was a married lady and accused appellant was neighbour of Bina Kanwar. On the date of occurrence, she was more than 18 years of the age as observed by Dr. O.P. Saini P.W. 6 and Dr. Satish Kachhawaha P.W. 9, P.W. 2 Mool Chand, father of the prosecutrix of P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar has admitted that the accused appellant used to come to his house for last about 4 to 5 years before the incident and he has never asked him not to come to his house. O.P. Saini P.W. 6 and Dr. Satish Kachhawaha P.W. 9, P.W. 2 Mool Chand, father of the prosecutrix of P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar has admitted that the accused appellant used to come to his house for last about 4 to 5 years before the incident and he has never asked him not to come to his house. He has further admitted that P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar is a married lady and after the incident he told P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar that since it is a matter of community and for preservation of self-instinct, he advised her that statements in Court be given looking to the above aspect. 10. From the statements of P.W. 1 Bina Kanwar following facts have come out : (i) On the date of occurrence, when she left the house the accused did not make any posture for asking her to come out. (ii) Once the accused met her on the roof and affair between the two became open. (iii) She was seen by her brother in the Company of accused appellant on the roof. (iv) That they went in a train and in the train so many people met her, but she did not inform anybody that she has been kidnapped. From the statements, it is also clear that from Bikaner, they went to Rajgarh, Jaipur, Gaziabad etc. (v) At Gaziabad, they lived in the house of uncle of accused appellant and in that house nobody was there. (vi) In Gaziabad, the accused appellant had sex with her against her will. (vii) After the incident that took place on 29.9.97 she came back on 3.10.97. (viii) The letters which have been written by the accused appellant to her have been torn by her. She has further stated that it is also correct to say that letters Ex. D/2 to Ex. D/17 were written by her to the accused appellant. 11. The question for determination is whether on the above evidence, the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner that the accused appellant committed rape on her at Gaziabad are liable to be confirmed or not? 12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that she was not kidnapped by the accused appellant Murli and she was not raped by him at Bikaner, but she has been raped at Gaziabad. 13. 12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that she was not kidnapped by the accused appellant Murli and she was not raped by him at Bikaner, but she has been raped at Gaziabad. 13. In my considered opinion, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and examining the evidence led by the prosecution in broad perspective, the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner are perverse, absurd and contrary to the well established principles of law. The prosecutrix is a married woman above the age of 18 years and has gone with the accused appellant of her own accord and roamed from one place to another place in the company of the accused appellant. To say that at Gaziabad when none was in the house, she has been raped by the accused appellant does not appear to be convincing statement.The statement of prosecutrix on this point does not appear to be convincing one and appears to have been made only for her self-respect. Her statement that she had sex with accused-appellant Murli at Gaziabad against her will is not to be accepted, rather it appears that whatever has been done. it has been done with her consent.For the above reasons, the statement of P.W. 1. Bina Kanwar is not believed on the point of rape at Gaziabad and thus, the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 by which he has convicted the accused appellant Murli for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. are liable to be set aside. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is liable to be allowed and the accused appellant is entitled to acquittal.In the result, the appeal filed by the accused appellant Murii is allowed and the judgment and order dated 1.8.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner are set aside and the ccused appellant Murli is also acquitted of the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. since accused appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.Appeal allowed - Conviction set aside. *******