JUDGMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for seven years by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Case No. 477/93/Tr. No. 14/99 by judgment and order dated 24.5.2000. 2. The case of the informant was that the appellant was well known to her since the last two years and good relations between them had been established on account of which she started living with him as his wife on a promise of marriage. She also became pregnant but the appellant refused to marry her hence she instituted the present First Information Report. 3. On behalf of the defence the argument was that in fact it was the mother of the girl who had refused marriage and in fact the sexual relationship between the parties was consensual. 4. During trial the prosecution examined six Witnesses out of whom PW 1, Mahasundari Devi the mother of the victim has supported the fact as stated by her daughter in the First Information Report. 5. PW 2 is the prosecutrix who stated that she was about 20 years of age and since the last two years the appellant used to visit her house and they had started maintaining close relationship. On account of promise to marry she had succumbed to his proposal to have physical relationship and had become pregnant. However, the appellant refused to marry her. 6. PW 3, Amrendra Pd. Gupta and PW 4, Lalitesh Gupta have been declared hostile. 7. PW 5 is the Investigating Officer who has proved the fardbeyan and the First Information Report and stated that he examined the witnesses after the case was instituted. He stated that all witnesses stated before him that on false assurance of marriage the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the victim on account of which she also gave birth to a child but later on he refused to marry her. 8. PW 6 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl and stated in his evidence that he was of the opinion that on 10.9.1989 the age of the prosecutrix was between 17 to 18 years. 8. PW 6 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl and stated in his evidence that he was of the opinion that on 10.9.1989 the age of the prosecutrix was between 17 to 18 years. Simple point raised on behalf of the appellant is that evidently in view of the admission of the Prosecution that the relationship was consensual and the Prosecutrix had attained the age of consent no offence under Section 376, IPC is made out. 9. In view of oral and documentary evidence to the aforesaid effect this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 24.5.2000 by the 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Case No. 477/93/Tr. No. 14/99 is set aside. The appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.