JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2004 and order of sentence, dated 16.03.2004, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vth, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 2002/ S.T.R. No. 24 of 2003, whereby all the four appellants named above have been convicted by the learned trial court for the offence committed and punishable under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 1, Bhavendra Das has been convicted also for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court has awarded simple imprisonment for three and half years for offence punishable under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code to all the appellants and has also awarded simple imprisonment for four years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code to the appellant Bhavendra Das. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period in jail custody already undergone by the appellants in course of the trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Savitri Munduia (P.W.2), recorded by S.I. N.K. Singh, officer-in-charge, Jhinkpani Police Station on 24.11.2001 at the house of complainant at 10.00 Hrs., where the informant has alleged that her parents are residing at Goa for their livelihood and the informant is residing with her cousin Balema Devgam. The informant has alleged that co-villager Bhavendra Das @ Babbin Das used to come to her house and threatened her for marriage. The informant under fear went to Chaibasa court along with Bhavendra Das, where she had signed on some papers and thereafter returned. On 20.10.2001, again the informant was enticed, threatened and was taken to Chaibasa Court along with her aunt Shanti Mundaiyan, Ramchandra Das and Sukhdeo Das. The informant has put her signature on some papers again, on which all these three persons have also put their signatures and thereafter Bhavendra Das disclosed that their marriage has been solemnized and informant is now his wife. Thereafter, informant was brought to his village and in the night, informant was raped and thereafter informant was forcibly kept inside the room for a month. The informant has further stated that because of the fear, she could not inform about the occurrence to anyone. Thereafter, informant was brought to his village and in the night, informant was raped and thereafter informant was forcibly kept inside the room for a month. The informant has further stated that because of the fear, she could not inform about the occurrence to anyone. During the period when the informant was under the clutches of Bhavendra Das (appellant), she was sexually ravished several times but somehow, informant fled away on 21.11.2001 and came to the house of her parents and disclosed the entire occurrence to them. In the meantime, police came and her statement was recorded by the police, as her marriage was not solemnized with her consent. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the police has registered Jhinkpani P.S. Case No. 51 of 2001, dated 24.11.2001, under Sections 363 A/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. 4. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 3 of 2002 dated 31.01.2002, under Sections 366 A and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the four named accused persons. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence vide order dated 12.02.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 09.10.2002. 6. The charge has been framed against all the accused/appellants under Section 366 A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and separately against Bhavendra Das @ Babbin Das, appellant no. 1, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 21.03.2003, to which the appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. There appears to be a typographical error in the form of charge, from the order sheet of the case. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether four witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. Dr. Deep Shikha Verma, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.1; Savitri Mundaiyan, informant and victim of the case, has been examined as P.W.2; Jamuna Mundaiyan, mother of the victim, has been examined as P.W.3; Vikram Mundaiyan, examined as P.W. 4 has been tendered by the prosecution. Injury report of the victim, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, signature of the informant on the fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2. 8. Injury report of the victim, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, signature of the informant on the fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants have been recorded on 23.02.2004 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where they have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. But no witness has been examined on behalf of the defence rather one documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence that is the marriage certificate issued by Marriage Officer, Chaibasa, dated 20.10.2001, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- ‘A’. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the same. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Gautam Kumar assisted by Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Gautam Kumar has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report, because of the fact that marriage was solemnized between the parties with consent before a competent Court of law and instead of applying for cancellation of the said marriage certificate, the informant has filed the present criminal case alleging that she was forced to marry and thereafter she was sexually ravished. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that investigating officer of the case has not been examined in this case and as such, the appellants have seriously prejudiced because of non-examination of the investigating officer as they have not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the investigating officer to elucidate the truth before the court, as such, the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants without taking judicial notice of the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as per the First Information Report, the parents of the informant were residing in Goa but while deposing in the Court, the mother of the victim, P.W.3, has stated that the victim had fled away and came to her house and disclosed entire occurrence to the parents. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as a matter of fact, it was a consenting marriage between the parties and appellant Bhavendra Das has no criminal intention, as it would be apparent that after solemnizing the marriage under law, which was initiated on 10.09.2001 and final order of marriage was passed on 20.10.2001, the appellant Bhavendra Das has disclosed before the informant that she has become his legally wedded wife and thereafter sexual relationship was established. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in the year 2001, the minimum age for attaining majority by a girl was 16 years, as such, the informant has also given her consent in the court. The informant never raised any brawl that she has been compelled to put her signature on the paper nor made complaint to the Registrar, Marriage and after about more than one month, she was again taken to the Court and as such, it cannot be said that by deception, such marriage certificate has been obtained. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that marriage gives a right to the husband for physical relationship with the wife. The wife has never alleged anything about the appellant at that time but subsequently she has filed a false case, on the basis of which the appellants have been convicted. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that informant instead of choosing the legal recourse for cancellation of marriage certificate granted by a competent court of law, has played an arm twisting game by filing a criminal case. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that till date marriage has not been annulled by a competent court of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in view of the submissions made above, the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction of the appellant Bhavendra Das under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in view of the submissions made above, the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction of the appellant Bhavendra Das under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Lily Sahay, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on the material available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that from perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that a case under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against Bhavendra Das @ Babbin Das and other appellants, who have taken the victim girl to the court under threat and as such, the conviction of the appellants under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in the eyes of law and subsequently on the basis of a forged document showing that the victim is legally married wife of the appellant Bhavendra Das @ Babbin Das, sexual relationship was forcibly established with the victim and as such, learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant Bhavendra Das under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Gautam Kumar assisted by Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Lily Sahay, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the entire record i.e. the First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of four prosecution witnesses, two exhibits of prosecution, statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the defence document i.e. Marriage certificate, which is marked Exhibit- A and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Dr. Deep Shikha Verma (P.W.1), Medical Officer has examined the victim on 24.11.2001 and found the age of the victim to be more than 18 years but less than 19 years. No injury on the person of the victim was found except a slight bleeding from posterior part of the hymen and doctor has also opined that victim is in habit of habitual intercourse. The injury report of the victim has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1. Victim Savitri Mundaiyan has been examined as P.W.2. No injury on the person of the victim was found except a slight bleeding from posterior part of the hymen and doctor has also opined that victim is in habit of habitual intercourse. The injury report of the victim has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1. Victim Savitri Mundaiyan has been examined as P.W.2. She has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that on 10.09.2001, she went to the Court, signed a paper and she was asked by an officer to come after one month. The papers were submitted and thereafter, she again went to the court on 20.10.2001. On that day she came under threat. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 2, that she came voluntarily on 10.09.2001 to fill up the marriage form before the competent court of law and the officer concerned has asked her to come after one month and for the first time informant has alleged that, she was brought to the court on 20.10.2001 under threat. Learned counsel for the appellants has rightly submitted before this Court that at the relevant time, the victim was a major girl, when she has signed the marriage form as on 10.09.2001, as the age required at that time was 16 years and in the First Information Report the informant has stated her age to be 16 years. Dr. Deep Shikha Verma (P.W.1) has also found the age of the informant to be more than 18 years and less than 19 years and as such, at the time of filling up the form, no force or threat was there and the victim has voluntarily signed the paper before a government servant, who was the marriage officer as no complain was made by the victim. The marriage certificate has been marked as Exhibit- A, which shows that the marriage certificate has been issued by a competent officer under the law and instead of filing an application for cancellation of marriage certificate the informant has filed the present criminal case after a delay. The delay was only with an intention to cook up a case and instead of taking a legal recourse available to her, the victim has adopted the arm twisting method. This Court has also perused the entire record. The delay was only with an intention to cook up a case and instead of taking a legal recourse available to her, the victim has adopted the arm twisting method. This Court has also perused the entire record. Vikram Mundaiyan (P.W.4) has been tendered by the prosecution and mother of the victim, Jamuna Mundaiyan (P.W.3) has stated during her cross-examination that her daughter has not disclosed anything to her rather her son Mahto Mundiya came to Goa and informed about the occurrence and thereafter, they have returned to the village but said Mahto Mundiya has not been examined in this case by the prosecution. This witness has categorically stated that after lodging of the case, police has not recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Considering the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that there was no allegation by the victim with respect to sexual exploitation by the appellant Bhavendra Das @ Babbin Das prior to issuance of marriage certificate issued by a competent authority under law. The question arises that if a marriage has been legally solemnized then, whether the husband has a right to sexual intercourse or not, at that relevant time. From the facts of the case, it appears that Bhavendra Das has claimed himself to be the legally married husband of the victim Savitri Mundaiyan on the basis of a marriage certificate issued by competent court of law of the solemnization of marriage on 20.10.2001, which was issued in presence of the witnesses, who are co-convicts of the present case and on the basis of that marriage certificate, Bhavendra Das has disclosed before the informant Savitri Mundaiyan that, she is now his legally wedded wife and only after that a physical relationship was established between the victim and the appellant and as such, no case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against Bhavendra Das. Under aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that appellant no. 1, Bhavendra Das is entitled for benefit of doubt as the victim P.W.2 has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not filed any application to annul the marriage certificate, meaning thereby that the victim has knowledge about the marriage certificate, but she has never challenged the marriage certificate. 1, Bhavendra Das is entitled for benefit of doubt as the victim P.W.2 has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not filed any application to annul the marriage certificate, meaning thereby that the victim has knowledge about the marriage certificate, but she has never challenged the marriage certificate. As such, the conviction of all these four appellants under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction of the appellant Bhavendra Das under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law as the victim being a major girl, went herself to fill up the form of marriage, on the basis of which, marriage certificate (Exhibit- A) has been issued and in that marriage certificate, appellants no. 2 to 4 have also put their signatures and on the basis of this marriage certificate, the marriage was consummated, which does not amounts to rape and as such, the appellants are acquitted of all the charges and conviction levelled against them, by extending benefit of doubt on the basis of Exhibit- A. 13. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2004 and order of sentence, dated 16.03.2004, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vth, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1992/S.T.R. No. 24 of 2003, in connection with Jhinkpani P.S. Case No. 51 of 2001, corresponding to G. R. No. 475 of 2001 is hereby set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Bhavendra Das is also acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt. 14. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 16. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.