JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. – The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 1997 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- to the victim Shitola Devi. 2. Shitola Devi has instituted the First Information Report on 20.06.1996 alleging therein that when she went to attend the call of nature, the appellant caught hold her, threatened her and thereafter raped her. She claims that she did not inform anybody regarding the occurrence because she was threatened by the appellant. Specifically, it is stated by her in the fardbeyan that after she became five months pregnant, she has informed the villagers. She has also stated that her husband has been living in Delhi for past two year. 3. The Doctor, P.W.3 examined the informant and assessed her age about twenty years and found her pregnant having foetus of seven months (twenty eight weeks). 4. The report of the Doctor would destroy the case of the informant inasmuch as according to her, she was having a five month pregnancy, whereas, the Doctor found her seven months pregnant, meaning thereby that the occurrence took place seven months prior to lodging of the First Information Report. 5. Apart from the medical evidence, the Court will refer to the evidence of the victim lady, who has been examined as P.W.2 Shitola Devi. In her chief, she has stated that she told her husband regarding the occurrence and has also stated that the appellant had raped her for the past six months. In cross-examination she specifically states that the appellant raped 20 to 25 times at the same place and at the same time. The informant has further stated that her husband returned 10-15 days prior to the lodging of the First Information Report although this fact has not been stated in the First Information Report. She has further stated that her husband was away in Delhi for the past two years. The other witnesses in this case are the villagers and they are hearsay witnesses of the occurrence and not a single witness has much knowledge regarding the occurrence. 6. She has further stated that her husband was away in Delhi for the past two years. The other witnesses in this case are the villagers and they are hearsay witnesses of the occurrence and not a single witness has much knowledge regarding the occurrence. 6. In the facts as stated above, it is apparently a case of consent between the informant and the appellant and it is only when she became pregnant, she has lodged the present case. The lady, in question, was a married woman, and, as such, it cannot be accepted that she was not aware of the consequence of entering into a physical relationship. I, therefore, conclude that in the present facts and circumstances, no case is made out under Section 376 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and as there is no enticement offered to the informant to enter into a relationship with the appellant. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case.