JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No. 4 (DM) of 1999 (GR Case No. 326 of 1997) whereby the accused Appellant was convicted Under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further imprisonment for three months. 3. In Sessions Case No. 4(DM) of 1999, the accused Appellant Mahesh Kalita @ Mahendra Kalita was tried for commission of rape on Smti. Usharani Kalita (P.W. 2) and on conclusion of the trial, the Appellant was convicted Under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment as stated above. 4. Accused Appellant Mahesh Kalita is a married man and a neighbour of PW 2. The case of the victim is that during day hours when her parents used to go out for work, accused used to come to her house and he had sexual intercourse with her on a few occasions. She did not report the matter to her parents. Thereafter, she went to Nagaon and stayed with her elder sister and she got herself examined by doctor who told her that she was pregnant. On query, she informed that the accused was the father of the child. She was sent back to her parents' place where she reported the matter to her parents and thereafter the FIR was lodged. The victim was examined by the doctor. 5. PW 7 Dr. Jatindra Das Bhagawati and PW 9 Dr. Hemtanta Kumar Mahanta examined the victim and both of them gave opinion that the victim is carrying a pregnancy of 22 weeks. 6. So far the age of the victim girl is concerned, although the prosecution came up with the plea that she was a minor, the medical evidence on record shows that the age of the girl was above 18 years at the relevant point of time. We also find on consideration of evidence on record that the trial court has recorded a specific finding that she was not a minor at the relevant time of occurrence and she was above 18 years of age. 7. We also find on consideration of evidence on record that the trial court has recorded a specific finding that she was not a minor at the relevant time of occurrence and she was above 18 years of age. 7. The impugned order of conviction has been challenged on the basis of the finding of the trial court that the sexual intercourse took place without the consent of the victim. We have perused the evidence of the victim, wherein she has stated that the accused was her neighbour. She also knew that the accused is a married man having two wives and children. The accused used to visit her during day hours in the absence of her parents and on many occasions, he had sexual intercourse with her. She has categorically stated that she never reported the matter to her parents as she was under the belief that she will not get pregnant. After few months, she went to her sister's place at Nagaon and when her pregnancy was discovered, she reported the name of the accused to her sister and subsequently to her parents. The conduct of PW 2 clearly shows that the sexual intercourse on her took place with her consent as she could have prevented herself from doing so by raising alarm at the time of incident and in the instant case, there was no such occasion that she was not in a position to raise alarm at the time of incident. That apart, the victim did not report the matter to her parents immediately after the occurrence and instead, the victim continued her affair with the accused Appellant and the matter was disclosed after 4/5 months when the victim was pregnant. Hence, we are unable to hold that the sexual intercourse was without the consent of the victim. 8. In view of the fact that the victim was a major and the sexual intercourse took place with her consent, no case for commission of offence Under Section 376 IPC is made out. This is not a case where the victim had allowed the accused to have sexual intercourse believing on the assurance that he is going to marry her. In the present case, no such assurance was given. Moreover, as stated above, the accused is a married man having two wives. 9. This is not a case where the victim had allowed the accused to have sexual intercourse believing on the assurance that he is going to marry her. In the present case, no such assurance was given. Moreover, as stated above, the accused is a married man having two wives. 9. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence. The accused Appellant is acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. The accused Appellant is on bail and as such, he need not surrender to his bail bonds. 10. Send down the records. Appeal allowed