ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By judgment and order dated 2.5.2008, passed, in Sessions Case No. 71 (DH)/2007, by the learned Session judge, Dhemaji, the accused-appellant stands convicted under Sections 376 and 417of the IPC and, in consequence of his conviction under Section 376, IPC, he stands sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. The accused-appellant is also sentenced to suffer, for his conviction under Section 417 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, passed against him, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, and Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing on behalf of the opposite party. 4. The prosecution's case as revealed at the trial, was, briefly stated, that on 17.1.2006, 'X', a woman, lodged a written information, at Dhemaji Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that the accused-appellant, having assured her that he would marry her, had been having sexual intercourse with her but, later on, refused to marry her. Based on this FIR, Dhemaji Police Station Case No. 15/2006 was registered, and, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was accordingly laid against the accused-appellant under Sections 376/420, IPC. 5. At the trial, the accused-appellant, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges, framed against him under Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses including the alleged victim, 'X'. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr PC. In his examination aforementioned, the accused denied to have committed the offences as alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 6. By judgment and order, 2.5.2006, as the learned trial Court has convicted the accused of the charged, framed against him, and passed sentences against him, as mentioned hereinabove, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of the prosecutrix, 'X', who was examined as PW-3. According to her evidence, she had love affair with the accused and that even the accused was in love with her. 7. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of the prosecutrix, 'X', who was examined as PW-3. According to her evidence, she had love affair with the accused and that even the accused was in love with her. PW-3 has deposed that one day, at about 9.00 p.m., the accused has sexual intercourse with her at the backyard of her house and that the accused, thereafter, continued to have, on several occasions, sexual intercourse with her. PW-3 has also deposed that she became pregnant as a result of the sexual intercourses, which the accused had with her, she took tablets and aborted that child. PW-3 has further deposed that though the accused has promised that he would marry her and take her to his home, he, finally, refused to do so and it was then that she lodged the Ejahar. In her cross-examination, she made it clear that she is, now, married to another person. 8. Be that as it may, in her cross-examination, the alleged victim, 'X', revealed that whenever the accused has sexual intercourse with her, she offered no resistance. In fact, in her cross-examination, she further clarified that it was with her consent that the accused had sexual intercourse with her and that when the accused has sexual intercourse with her, she was nineteen years old. There is not even a whisper, in the evidence of PW-3, that she has allowed the accused to have sexual intercourse with her, because of the fact that he had promised to marry her. It is, thus, clear that the sexual intercourse, which the accused is alleged to have had with PW-3, was not pursuant to any promise. This apart, the sexual intercourse between the accused and PW-3 was, admittedly, with the consent of PW-3. Being nineteen years old, the prosecutrix had already attained majority, when the accused has sexual intercourse with her, the sexual intercourse being, with her consent. In such circumstances, the accused appellant could neither have been held to have committed an offence under Section 376, IPC nor could he have been held to have committed an offence under Section417, IPC. 9. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, it becomes clear that there is no foundation for the conviction of the accused under Section 376, IPC and/or 417, IPC. 9. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, it becomes clear that there is no foundation for the conviction of the accused under Section 376, IPC and/or 417, IPC. The conviction of the accused-appellant cannot, therefore, be sustained and must be set aside. 10. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned order of conviction, and the sentences passed, against the accused-appellant, are hereby set aside. Let the accused-appellant be set at liberty, forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case. 11. Send back the LCR. Appeal allowed