JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment dated 20.8.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast, Track Court, Chitradurga in S.C. No. 79/2003 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo S.I. for a period of 6 months and further convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo S.I. for a period of 6 months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.12.2002, the accused has induced the victim who is aged less than 18 years to have illicit intercourse with him by taking her from her lawful custody when she was walking on Karikere Meerasabihally road to go to school, thereby, he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 366A IPC. It is further alleged that on the above said date, place and time accused had taken the victim to room No. 25, Kalpana Hotel at Hiriyur town at about 12.30 p.m. he has committed rape on the victim who is a minor at that time thereby, he is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 20 witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 20 and got marked documents Exs. P1 to P19 and produced M.Os. 1 to 5. 4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and he has got marked Exs. D1 to D6 in his defence. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused and sentenced him as herein before mentioned. The convicted accused has filed this appeal. 5. Heard Sri N. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP for the respondent State. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the victim was in love with the accused and she had written many love letters to the accused. He submits that the accused has produced the love letters alongwith the statement under Section 313 Cr. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the victim was in love with the accused and she had written many love letters to the accused. He submits that the accused has produced the love letters alongwith the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The tenor of the said letters indicate that the victim wanted to go with the accused and live with him and at no point of time, the accused has exercised either force or inducement on the victim. He further submits that the victim herself has stated in her statement that she is aged 16 years and the mother of the victim P.W. 1 has also stated in her further statement before the police that her daughter is aged 16 years. The certificate issued by the school is not the authenticated certificate to say that the victim was aged less than 16 years and no birth certificate by the Tasildhar or the village accountant is produced in this case. Ex. P5 is the certificate issued by the doctor, which indicates that the victim is of the age between 15-16 years and the doctor has certified that the victim is aged 16 years as per Ex. P5. The documents relied on by the prosecution in so far as the age is concerned is only a typed letter issued by the principal of the school namely P.W. 6, which is not a authenticated document. Under the circumstances, he submits that, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 1276 . there can be a difference of about 2 years in the age of the victim and if the said decision is taken into consideration, the victim’s age would be rounded to the age of 18 years. Therefore, in view of the fact that at the time of the commission of the offence, the victim has not objected nor created any quarrel with the accused, so it can he safely held that the victim had gone with the accused voluntarily and in such an event, no offence is proved to have been committed by the accused. Hence, he submitted that the accused may be given benefit of doubt. 7. Hence, he submitted that the accused may be given benefit of doubt. 7. Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned HCGP for the respondent State submits that the victim herself at one stage has stated that her age is 14 years and admitted that the date of birth is 26.3.1998 and the date of offence is 30.12.2002 which means the victim has just crossed 14 years, as on the date of the offence. Hence, no defence is available to the accused to take the shelter in view of the age of the victim is concerned. P.W. 6 Mahadevappa’s evidence further corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 regarding the age of the victim. On the other hand, the evidence of victim P.W. 2 coupled with the medical evidence conclusively proves that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim and therefore, he is guilty for the offence for which he stood charged. He submits that appeal may be dismissed by confirming the order of conviction and sentence. 8. The prosecution in this case commenced with the filing of the complaint by Smt. Yashodamma on 2.1.2003. In the said complaint, she has stated that she is residing in the Karikere village of Chalkere Taluk alongwith her husband and daughter Nagaveni. Her daughter is a minor aged about 14 years and she is studying in 10th Standard. She Is looked after by the complainant. It is stated in the complaint, that, on 30.12.2002, the accused had kidnapped her daughter, while her daughter was coming back from school and when she made enquiry with the other children of the school, it was brought to her notice that the accused had taken the victim and the villagers have also confirmed that her daughter has been, taken by the accused. Her daughter was wearing gold ornaments at the time of kidnap. After a thorough, search, she could not trace her daughter therefore, she has filed the complaint belatedly, since, the accused has threatened to take away her life and to set fire to their house. Chalkere police on receipt of the said complaint registered the same as Crime No. 1/2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and commenced investigation. Chalkere police on receipt of the said complaint registered the same as Crime No. 1/2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and commenced investigation. The victim was traced on 14.1.2003 by the police and she has given the statement, before, the police, that on 30.12.2002, when she went to the school it was late and at about 9 a.m., when she was walking on the road in order to come to the school, the accused came near one bridge from her behind and held her tightly, inserted one kerchief in her mouth, dragged her and threatened her not to shout. The accused took her in a bus and thereafter, got down, from the bus after half an hour travelling in the bus. Thereafter, they went to Hiriyurbus stand by that time it was 3’O clock in the afternoon and thereafter, he took her to Kalpana lodge. In the said lodge, he took her to the upper floor and made her to sit till 6 ‘0’ clock. At about 6’O clock, the accused committed forcible intercourse on her, thereafter, he kept her in the said lodge for 8 days. Accused was bringing food to her and was committing force on her every day. On Saturday accused informed her that his mother had phoned up stating that her mother has filed a complaint and the police have come to their house. Thereafter, he took her back to the village and sent her saying that she should withdraw the ease. She went to the house of Jayamma, who is her maternal aunt and informed her about the incident. On the next day, she came to her house and informed her parents and uncle Rangaswamy, thereafter, she went to the police station and gave the statement as above. The police recorded the above statement on 14.1.2003 and on the basis of the said statement. Section 376 IPC is added to the earlier crime No. 1/2003. Police thereafter, subjected her to medical examination and after investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376 IPC. 9. In the Court, P.W. 1 has reiterated the version she has mentioned in the complaint Ex. P1. P.W. 2 is the victim, she has also stated regarding the statement given by her on 14.1.2003 before the police. 9. In the Court, P.W. 1 has reiterated the version she has mentioned in the complaint Ex. P1. P.W. 2 is the victim, she has also stated regarding the statement given by her on 14.1.2003 before the police. More particularly, she has stated that accused had committed rape on her in the Kalpana lodge at Hiriyur after taking her from her parents custody. He has also stated that the accused has threatened her that, he will kill her, if she were to give a complaint either to her parents or to the police. Alter some days accused had left her in ombanahalu gate and went forward in the same bus. She went to her uncle’s house and informed her parents and thereafter, filed a complaint. Ex. P2 is the complaint given by her to the police. In the cross-examination, the learned Counsel for the accused confronted the alleged love letters, said to have been written by P.W. 2 to the accused. However, she has denied having written any letters to the accused. She has also denied that she was in love with the accused and that, she had voluntarily gone with the accused on the date of the offence. P.W. 3 Saroja bai is the doctor at Chalkere Community Health Centre. She has stated that on the examination of P.W. 2, she was found to be healthy but hymen was not intact and she has referred P.W. 2 to a radiologist for age determination. She has stated that P.W. 2 was used to sexual intercourse but there was no evidence of recent intercourse on the person of the P.W. 2. P.W. 4 is the doctor, who has examined the accused and has stated that the accused is capable of performing sexual activities, P.W. 5 is the radiologist who has stated that, after examination of P.W. 2 her age has been determined between 15 and 16 as per Ex. P5 which is the certificate issued by him. P.W. 6 is the principal of the school, where P.W. 2 was studied. He has issued the certificate on the basis of the transfer certificate stating that the date of birth of the victim is 26.3.1998. P.W. 7 is the owner of Kalpana Boarding and Lodging, Hiriyur who has stated that on 31.12.2002, Jayanna and wife Nagaveni had come to the hotel and had vacated the hotel on 4.1.2003 as per Ex. P8. He has issued the certificate on the basis of the transfer certificate stating that the date of birth of the victim is 26.3.1998. P.W. 7 is the owner of Kalpana Boarding and Lodging, Hiriyur who has stated that on 31.12.2002, Jayanna and wife Nagaveni had come to the hotel and had vacated the hotel on 4.1.2003 as per Ex. P8. However, he identified the accused as the same person who had come to the hotel on 31.12.2002. P.W. 8 is the signatory to Ex. P10 panchanama. P.Ws. 9, 10 and 11 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 12 is the brother-in-law of the victim, his evidence is of hearsay nature. P.W. 13 Anjinappa speaks about the missing of P.W. 2. P.W. 14 is the newspaper reporter who states that after kidnap of P.W. 2, it was revealed that accused was already married person. P.W. 15 is the Head Constable, who has registered the case and thereafter, he was deputed to trace the accused. He has arrested the accused and produced before the police on 16.2.2003. P.W. 16 has physically caught hold of the accused on 16.2.2003 alongwith P.W. 15. P.W. 1.7 has carried the articles to FSL. P.W. 18 is PSI, who has registered the case in crime No. 1/03 on the complaint given by P.W. 1. The complaint is a typed complaint. P.W. 19 is the PSI who has collected the age certificate of the victim and recorded the statement of P.W. 2, when she was secured on 14.1.2003. He sent the victim to the hospital for examination. P.W. 20 is the Inspector who has conducted the investigation and after verification of the records and the documents filed the charge sheet in this case. 10. It is from the evidence of the above witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 366A and 378 IPC. 11. I have gone through the materials on record. It is seen from the evidence on record that from 30.12.2002 till 14.1.2003 the accused was living alongwith victim P.W. 2 at various places including the lodge at Hiriyur. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that he was bringing food to her and she was made to remain in the hotel room for some days. It is seen from the evidence on record that from 30.12.2002 till 14.1.2003 the accused was living alongwith victim P.W. 2 at various places including the lodge at Hiriyur. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that he was bringing food to her and she was made to remain in the hotel room for some days. All through the 16 days, she was with the accused, neither the victim tried to escape nor complained to anybody saying that she has been forcibly taken by the accused. The radiologist report indicates that the victim is aged about. 15 to 16 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1276 has held that in the event of there being no satisfactory proof of the age and in the event, of prosecution stating that the victim is aged about 16 years, it could be rounded up with a margin of 2 years and therefore, in the said case the conviction of the accused has been, set aside and he is acquitted of the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. In this case, it is seen that the age certificate given by P.W. 6 is based on the transfer certificate secured by the victim and her parents at the time of joining the Pre-University College. The question that who has entered age column in the transfer certificate is not brought out on record. The mother of the victim while giving the statement, says that her daughter is aged 16 years and in the statement recorded by the police on 15,1.2003, the victim herself says that her age is 16 years. Victim is studying in the 10th standard as on the date of the incident. Under the circumstances, the victim is in the borderline of 16 years as on 30.12.2002, when the alleged incident had happened. The learned Sessions Judge has further found that the handwriting in the love letters produced by the accused and the belonging to the victim are that of the victim and on a perusal of the said love letters, it is seen that the victim was in love with the accused and wanted to go alongwith him. The date mentioned in one of the letters is 5.11.2002, and one more letter is dated 5.12.2002. The date mentioned in one of the letters is 5.11.2002, and one more letter is dated 5.12.2002. Under the circumstances, it can be safely gathered that the victim was in love with the accused and interested to go with him and was of the age of maturity both physically and mentally. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that accused has either used physical or mental force to induce the victim to come with him or to participate in sexual intercourse. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused holding that the accused has neither used force nor mental inducement on P.W. 2 victim and prosecution has not made out the case for the offences under Sections 376 or 366A IPC. 12. In that view of the matter, the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal and accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, is set aside and he is acquitted of the offences leveled against him. Bail bonds executed by him if any, is discharged and the fine amount if deposited shall be refunded to him.