JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 5.1.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Session Case No. 13/2011 whereby the respondent accused was discharged from the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecutrix was a minor girl, and therefore, the learned trial Judge was absolutely unjustified in discharging the accused of the offences mentioned above.She thus prays that the revision deserves to be accepted. 3. On a perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the learned Trial Court took note of the fact that the prosecutrix was examined by the police during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She was also examined on oath under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In both these statements she stated that she went with the accused of her own free will. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated as below:- " fd og lriky jk;fl[k dks 3&4 o"kksZa ls tkurh gS] og mudh xyh esa vkrk Fkk] blfy;s tku&ifgpku gks x;h Fkh] eksgYys dh vkSjrksa dks lkFk og elkuh vM~Mk ds ikl ugj ij ydfM+;ka pqxus tkrh Fkh] lriky Hkh ydfM+;ka pqxus lkFk tkrk Fkk] ogkWa mlus mlds lkFk dHkh xyr dke ugha fd;k] og lriky ls I;kj djus yxh Fkh] mlds ?kjokys 'kd ds dkj.k mlls ekjihV djrs Fks] fnukad 24-10-2010 dks 7 cts vius ?kj ls fudydj jsyos QkVd ij igqaph] ogha lriky feyk vkSj mlds lkFk fnYyh okyh ls cl esa cSBdj fnYyh pyh x;h vkSj ogka esoyh xkao esa lriky ds fj'rsnkjksa ds ?kj x;s] ogka lriky us dgk fd ge 'kknh djus vk;s gSa] ml ?kj esa jkr dks lriky us mlds lkFk mldh ethZ ls lEHkksx fd;k Fkk vkSj vxyh jkr dks Hkh nks ckj mldh ethZ ls lEHkksx fd;k FkkA " 4. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid statement, it is evident that there is no allegation of the prosecutrix that the accused took her out of the lawful guardianship of her guardian. The prosecutrix clearly stated that she was having an intimacy with the accused. She herself left the house and reached the railway crossing where the respondent met her. Both of them voluntarily boarded the bus going to Delhi. The prosecutrix clearly stated that she was having an intimacy with the accused. She herself left the house and reached the railway crossing where the respondent met her. Both of them voluntarily boarded the bus going to Delhi. There she married Satpal and had consensual intercourse with him. The age of the prosecutrix as per her school record was 17 years 8 months and 22 days on the date of the occurrence. Thus, she was above 16 years of age and was competent to give consent for sexual intercourse. In this view of the matter, the learned Trial Court was absolutely justified while discharging the respondent by exercising the powers under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, the revision filed by the State against the order of discharge is dismissed summarily.Revision dismissed. *******