JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the Appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions case No. 128/2000. 3. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that on 10.11.99, while the victim PW 1 (name withheld) was going to her school the accused Appellant accosted her on the road and forcibly put her in a Maruti Van, kidnapped her and took her to a village where she was kept for a night and thereafter she was removed to another village and thereafter she was kept confined for two weeks. During this period the accused committed sexual intercourse with her and later on she was recovered by police from where she was kept confined. Relying on the testimony of the victim the trial court convicted the accused Appellant for the offence under Section 366 as well as 376 IPC. 4. In this case the incident of the boy and the girl moving together and having physical relationship as such is not disputed or challenged. The defence has come up with a specific plea that this was a case of voluntary elopement and hence no offence as such was committed. 5. The prosecution came up with the plea that at the relevant point of time the victim was a student of class DC but surprisingly the prosecution has not produced any school certificate or birth certificate in support of the age of the victim. PW 1 was examined by the doctor and on the basis of the ossification test the doctor opined that the girl is above 16 years and below 17 years of age. The result of such ossification test may vary by two years on either side and thus the benefit of this must go to the accused and we hold that the girl was about 18 years of age. 6. In the present case, we find that the victim has given two different version of the incident. If one goes through the examination in chief of PW1 will find that she was a victim of forcible kidnapping and subjected to physical violation against her will. 6. In the present case, we find that the victim has given two different version of the incident. If one goes through the examination in chief of PW1 will find that she was a victim of forcible kidnapping and subjected to physical violation against her will. However, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure as well as 164 Code of Criminal Procedure and we find that PW1 has admitted that she had a love affair with the accused Appellant and there were even exchange of love letters. The earlier version of the victim was that she had voluntarily gone to the accused and thereafter she had physical relationship with him although initially she was not prepared for it but in view of the promise of marriage etc. they indulged in physical relationship and thereafter both of them voluntarily came to the police station and surrendered. Thus she had taken a complete turn in her statement and this has been explained by her that her earlier statement both before police and Magistrate was due to the fear of the accused. We however, find that the girl was handed over to her parents on 22.11.99 and since then she was with her parents and her statement before the Magistrate was recorded on 25.11.99 when the accused was already in jail. We are thus unable to accept the prosecution explanation. 7. The law is well settled that conviction in a case under Section 366 IPC or 376 IPC can be based on the solitary statement of the victim provided that it is fully reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, the statement of the victim does not inspire confidence because of the different versions given by her at different point of time. 8. In view of the above, we hold the accused not guilty of the offence charged and we acquit him. The impugned order of conviction and sentence is set aside. 9. The accused who is on bail need not surrender to his bail bond. 10. Send down the records.