JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2000 passed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 392 of 1990, by which judgment, he found the sole appellant No. 1, Dil Mohammad guilty for the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He found the appellant No. 2, Munna Khatoon guilty for the offence u/s 109/376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 5000/- with two sureties of the like amount to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that it will appear from the evidences of the prosecutrix as also the evidences Of other witnesses that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and the conviction of the appellants are bad in law and only fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubts that the appellant NO. 1, Dil Mohammad in collusion with the appellant No. 2, Munna Khatoon committed rape upon the victim girl, Majidan Khatoon, and as such, appellant No. 1 has rightly been convicted. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by the informant-victim, Majidan Khatoon on 19.02.1990 stating therein that the villager, Dil Mohammad called her through her sister, Munna Khatoon, from her house about four months back. Thereafter, Dil Mohammad closed the door from inside and then he committed rape upon her. When she wanted to raise hulla the sister of the accused No. 1, Munna Khatoon stated that his brother, Dil Mohammad will marry her. Then, she made no hulla. When, she told about the occurrence to the villager Gandur Khan S/o Sabder Khan, then, he also said that he will see that they get married. Now, she is about four months pregnant and then she is giving this written report. 6. Then, she made no hulla. When, she told about the occurrence to the villager Gandur Khan S/o Sabder Khan, then, he also said that he will see that they get married. Now, she is about four months pregnant and then she is giving this written report. 6. On the basis of the said written report, police registered a case for the offence u/s 376/120B of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation police submitted charge sheet in the case. 7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by .the court of Sessions, learned C.J.M., after taking cognizance, committed the case to the court of Sessions and lastly the case was tried by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi as stated above, who found the appellants guilty and convicted them thereunder. 8. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 is Haider Khan. P.W.2 is Kasim Khan, who is the father of the victim girl. P.W.3 is Majidan Khatoon, who is the victim girl (informant). P.W.4 is Ainul Khan. P.W.5 is Jamiran Khatoon, who is the mother of the informant. P.W.6 is Md. Israil, who is the tender witness. P.W.7 is Dr. Reeta La, who examined the victim girl. 9. The informant. P.W.3 Majidan Khatoon slated in Court that about three years back in the afternoon, Munna Khatoon called her for giving rice and took her to her house. In her house, she took her to, her room and left her and closed the door from outside. The accused Dil Mohammad was sitting in that loom. When, she said to open the door, then Munna Khatoon said that live with Dil Mohammad and you will be married with him. Then, Dil Mohammad after putting her on ground committed rape upon her against her will. After committing rape, Dil Mohammad asked her to open the door, then Munna Khatoon opened the door and told her not to make any hulla, I will get your marriage done with Dil Mohammad. On the way, she met with Gandur Khan and told him about the occurrence, then he also told not to make hulla, you will be married with him. Thereafter, she told about the occurence to her father, Haider Khan. During the last four months, she became pregnant due to the occurrence. On the way, she met with Gandur Khan and told him about the occurrence, then he also told not to make hulla, you will be married with him. Thereafter, she told about the occurence to her father, Haider Khan. During the last four months, she became pregnant due to the occurrence. Gandur Khan refused to get her marriage done with Dil Mohammad and he got his daughter, Vashila married with Dil Mohammad. Even, panchayati did not held, then, she lodged this case. She identified the accused persons n the court. In her cross examination, she stated that when she went for her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement in court, she was four months pregnant. At para 15, she stated that when Munna Khatoon came to her house for calling her, she was alone in the house and their houses are by the side of her house, but she did not inform anybody. Subsequently, when the victim girl was cross examined on 25.09.1999, then she admitted at para 31 of her cross examination that she was in love with Dil Mohammad from before the occurrence and she used to go to him. She even admitted that she had physical relations with him before that occurrence and when she became pregnant, then, she asked him to marry her. She also stated that since, Dil Mohammad had married the daughter of Gandur Khan, that is why, she became arrogant from him and lodged this case. If he had done nikah with her, then, she would not have lodged this case. Then, again she admitted that on 23.11.1998, after lodging of the case, she had got married with Dil Mohammad and nikah was done with him and after nikah, she had also physical relation with him. She also admitted that presently she is living in her sasural. 10. Then, again she admitted that on 23.11.1998, after lodging of the case, she had got married with Dil Mohammad and nikah was done with him and after nikah, she had also physical relation with him. She also admitted that presently she is living in her sasural. 10. Thus, it appears from the evidence of the victim girl's evidence that although in her examination in chief, she stated that the accused Dil Mohammad physically rapped her, but subsequently, on her re-examination, she admitted hat she had love affairs with the accused, Dil Mohammad before the occurrence and she had physical relation with him also, and only because he got married with another lady i.e. the daughter of Gandur Khan, she lodged this case and now she admits that he has married her and if he had earlier married her, she would not have filed this case. 11. Although, the earlier statement of the victim girl given on 19.02.1990 was supported by the evidence of P.W.1, Haider Khan and P.W 2, Karim Khan, but now since, she herself contradicted her evidence in her further cross examination on 25.09.1999, and even, the Dr. Reeta Lal, who examined her and proved the medical report as Ext.4, found no case of rape, it appears that the allegations of rape were only the product of annoyance, since the accused Dil Mohammad contracted marriage with the daughter of Gandur Khan and subsequently, he contracted marriage with the prosecutrix. The victim girl admitted that she was a consenting party and she was in love with him before the occurrence. 12. In that view of the matter, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2000 u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 109/376 of the Indian Penal Code passed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 392 of 1990 is bad in law and is set aside. 13. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. 14. The appellants are on bail and thus, they are released from the bondage of, their bail bond.