Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. Sarbjit Singh appellant had been convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur for offence under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to 7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. 2. In fact, Sarabjit Singh along with his wife Suman alias Soma and two others accused had faced trial for offence under Section 376/34 and 120-B IPC. The case had been registered on a complaint made by Sukhpal Kaur that about one month earlier, she had joined a dance party of Bholi alias Manjit Kaur. Bholi had solemnised a fake marriage of Sukhpal Kaur with her son Dharminder Singh who used to have sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. Manjit Kaur alias Bholi used to bring some more persons also, who were having sexual intercourse with her i.e. complainant. Then complainant left the dance party due to this harassment and she joined the dance party of Sarabjit Singh Suman. After some days, Suman wife of Sarabjit Singh started harassing the complainant and appellant Sarabjit Singh had sexual intercourse with Sukhpal Kaur complainant two times with the consent of Suman accused. 3. All the accused mentioned by Sukhpal Kaur had been challaned. They had faced trial. Ultimately, Sarabjit Singh was convicted, whereas the other accused had been acquitted. 4. Sukhpal Kaur complainant had been examined as PW-5 in this case. She had given her age to be 16 years and had supported her case as mentioned in the statement Exhibit P-6 made by her to the police. In cross-examination, she had stated that she did not know for how long she remained with Sarabjits dance party and cannot tell the date, month or the year when Sarabjit raped her. She stated that she used to go out of the house of Sarabjit Singh to attend functions. She did not talk to anybody about the harassment or rape by Sarabjit Singh. That she used to take bath and meal and was leading a normal life in the house of Sarabjit Singh. She has stated that Sarabjit Singh was already married when she joined his dance party and that Sarabjit Singh was residing in one room as a tenant but she did not know as to who was the landlord of that room. 5. PW-2 Dr. She has stated that Sarabjit Singh was already married when she joined his dance party and that Sarabjit Singh was residing in one room as a tenant but she did not know as to who was the landlord of that room. 5. PW-2 Dr. Sonia Gulati had medically examined Sukhpal Kaur on 30.12.1999 but did no find any external mark of injury. She had advised ossification test for confirmation of age. She stated that she did not get any report of the ossification test. Vagina was admitting two fingers. She stated that vaginal swab had been taken and sent for chemical examination but there is no report of any semen or anything. 6. PW-6 Baljit Kaur is mother of Sukhpal Kaur prosecutrix. She had stated that her daughter had gone with the dance party. That she was born in the year 1986 or 1987. This witness also produced photo copy of ration card, which was just marked as "A". 7. DW-2 Resham Singh, a Municipal Commissioner, Ferozepur, who was staying opposite the house of Sarabjit Singh and Suman, had stated that Jaswinder Kaur daughter of Manjit Kaur alias Bholi accused had been murdered by police officials and Manjit Kaur etc. had filed a complaint against police officials and Sarabjit Singh and Suman used to help Manjit Kaur in that case. He stated that Sukhpal Kaur never resided with Sarabjit Singh accused in the house. That the accused had been just framed by the police since they had helped Manjit Kaur. A certified copy of the complaint Ex. D-1 in this connection had been proved by Kusum Lata DW-1, a Court Official. 8. Statements of PW-5 Sukhpal Kaur complainant made in the Court and before the police had been that she had joined Bholis Orchestra. Bholi got solemnised fake marriage with her son Soma alias Dharminder. That Dharminder was doing bad act with her and some other persons were also brought by Bholi who were also doing bad acts and then she had left that place due to harassment and had joined Sarabjit Singh and Suman party. Thereafter Sarabjit Singh started harassing her and raped her in the presence of Suman. However, she admitted that she made a report to the police after one month of such occurrence. 9. Thereafter Sarabjit Singh started harassing her and raped her in the presence of Suman. However, she admitted that she made a report to the police after one month of such occurrence. 9. From the statement and cross-examination of Sukhpal Kaur complainant, it will be quite clear that she had been a consenting party to the sexual intercourse, if any, either with Dharminder son of Bholi or with some other persons and then with Sarabjit Singh. This will appear from the medical evidence as well. 10. The main question will be whether this Sukhpal Kaur complainant was aged 16 years or less at the time of commission of the offence. Sukhpal Kaur complainant had stated her age to be 16 years. She stated her age to be 15-16 years before the doctor. No ossification test was conducted to determine her age. There is no evidence on the file that she was less than 16 years except her bald statement. However, from her own statement, it would appear that she had solemnised some fake marriage with Soma alias Dharminder son of Bholi. That marriage must have been continued for some time. Then she had left that place and joined Sarabjit Singh. Statement of Baljit Kaur PW-6 that Sukhpal Kaur was born in the year 1986 or 1987 remains uncorroborated. No proof of her date of birth had been produced nor there is evidence of sequence age or date of birth of the other children of Baljit Kaur, from which it could be made out that Sukhpal Kaur was less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. 11. Under these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution case against Sarabjit Singh appellant is not proved. This appeal is allowed. Sarabjit Singh appellant is acquitted of the charge. He be released forthwith, if not involved in any other case.