JUDGMENT 1. The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur (MP) has passed the impugned judgment dated 3.5.2008 in ST No. 17/ 2008 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under section 376 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 100/-, with default stipulation. 2. Being aggrieved the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under section 374 of CrPC. 3. The prosecution case in short is that prosecutrix (PW -1) lodged the report (Ex. P-1) in Police Station Gadarwara that appellant/accused commited sexual intercourse with her by making a promise to marriage with her just before 7 1/2 months. She further alleged that after aforesaid incident, appellant committed repeated intercourse with her whenever he got the chance to do the same. Therefore, she became pregnant. Primarily appellant/accused assured her for marriage but later on he denied. 4. Mukesh Singhal (PW-13) recorded Ex. P-1 prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Nidhi (PW-14). On the basis of sonography she opined that prosecutrix carrying a baby of 6 months. 5. The appellant was arrested and examined by Dr. D.R. Choudhary (PW-10) who found him capable of performing intercourse. 6. Madhu (PW-8) proved the birth through admission register (Ex P-8) and opined that prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. 7. After usual investigation appellant/accused was charge-sheeted before the trial Court. 8. On appraisal of evidence on record, learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein above. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecutrix herself admitted in para 16 of her cross examination that she was fell in love affair with appellant/accused and both of them were agreed to marry. She further admitted that she was consenting party during intercourse. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that trial Court only held guilty to appellant on the basis of age of prosecutrix. He further submitted that prosecutrix and appellant married on 24.6.2010 and their marriage certificate is already taken on record by this Court vide order dated 16.7.2010. He further submitted that appellant remained in custody approximately for 2 years and 20 days. In these circumstances, end of justice would be met out if the sentence imposed upon the appellant be altered to the period of already undergone and fine of Rs. 100/- which is already deposited. 11. He further submitted that appellant remained in custody approximately for 2 years and 20 days. In these circumstances, end of justice would be met out if the sentence imposed upon the appellant be altered to the period of already undergone and fine of Rs. 100/- which is already deposited. 11. After due consideration of argument of learned counsel for the appellant and on considering the special fact that now appellant and prosecutrix are husband and wife. They are also blessed with a male child. In these circumstances, if appellant would be sent to jail back there will be a destruction in family. 12. On perusal of record it reveals that prosecutrix was consenting party but due to the technical evidence she was found just below the 16 years of age. 13. In these circumstances, appeal is party allowed. Conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is maintained and the appellant/accused is sentenced to jail sentence of already undergone and fine of Rs. 100/- which is already deposited. 14. His bail bonds stand discharged.