JUDGMENT : K.G. Shankar, J. This is a very peculiar case. The de facto complainant and the petitioner-accused wanted to compound the case. The accused was convicted by the trial court for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC as well as for the offence under Section 376 IPC. While the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC are compoundable, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not compoundable. Smt. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the appeal is confined to the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC and that so far as the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC are concerned, the de facto complainant and the petitioner-accused would compound the same. I therefore propose to examine whether the offence under Section 376 IPC is made out or not. 2. The case of the prosecution is: The accused and the de facto complainant, who is P.W.1, are residents of the same village. The accused made a false promise to P.W.1 that he would marry her. P.W.1 reciprocated by falling in love with the accused. The accused consequently developed carnal acquaintance with P.W.1 since about six months prior to the charge-sheet. When P.W.1 pressurised the accused to marry her, the accused postponed the same. At the instance of P.W.1, a dispute was raised before the mediators. Before the mediators, the accused admitted his guilt but refused to marry P.W.1. The accused consequently allegedly committed the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC for cheating P.W.1 and for the offence under Section 376 IPC for having carnal acquaintance with P.W.1 falsely promising to marry her. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence under Section 376 IPC has not been made out at all. In her evidence, P.W.1 stated that the accused convinced her that he would marry her and had developed carnal acquaintance with her for a period of six months. Thus, it is not as though the incident was a single episode but the accused and P.W.1 continued their sexual intimacy for a period of six months. 4. P.W.1 deposed that she was 17 years old at the time of the carnal acquaintance between her and the accused. It is not necessary to go into the evidence regarding the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC for the reasons already stated. 5. 4. P.W.1 deposed that she was 17 years old at the time of the carnal acquaintance between her and the accused. It is not necessary to go into the evidence regarding the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC for the reasons already stated. 5. So far as the offence under Section 376 IPC is concerned, sexual intercourse by a man with a girl above 16 years of age would not be rape as long as such a sexual intercourse was with the consent of the girl. In K.P.Thimmappa Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2011 (2) ALT(Crl.) 303 (SC), the victim admitted for having sex with the accused on several occasions. The Supreme Court observed that the offence under Section 376 IPC does not fructify when a lady above 16 years of age voluntarily had carnal acquaintance with a man. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case also, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.1 that she was a consenting party for the intercourse between her and the accused. I therefore am constrained to hold that the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out. The petitioner-accused consequently is liable to be acquitted for the same. 6. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are present. They filed a petition under Section 320 Cr.P.C for compounding all the offences. The petition was allowed to the extent of the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC. Thus, the accused already stood acquitted for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC. As no offence is made out against the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC, which is the only other offence levelled against the petitioner-accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal and is entitled to release, if he is in jail, if he is not required in any other case. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent of the offence under Section 376 IPC is concerned holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and is allowed to the extent of the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC are concerned as the petitioner and the de facto complainant have compounded those offences. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.