Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 192 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 03/05.06.1997 passed by Sri Jaleshwar Ram, Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in S.Tr. No. 261/1991/89/1993. ************ Sakil Akhtar alias Shakil Kaji Shahabuddin, resident of Village-Bagicha, P.S.-Bahadurganj in the district of Kishanganj. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Opposite Party) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Sarangdhar Jha, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to RI for eight years and also a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of which a further period of two years RI by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in S.Tr. No. 261/1991/89/1993 by a judgment dated 03/05.06.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant P.W. 4 Imazuddin is that about six months back 24.07.1989 when his daughter Asmat Ara Begum had gone to the bamboo clump for latrine the appellant had raped her. Thereafter, he forcibly established physical relation with her on many occasions on account of which she became pregnant and after six months of pregnancy when the appellant was asked to marry her he refused to do so at which a panchayati was 2 held and then the present case was instituted on behalf of the prosecution. 3. On behalf of the prosecution seven witnesses have been examined out of whom P.W. 4 is the informant and father of the victim girl whereas P.W. 3 is the victim herself. P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are the Investigating Officers and P.W. 5 is the Doctor who examined the victim. P.W. 2 is the uncle of the victim girl whereas P.W. 1 is co-villager. P.W. 1 has only partly supported the prosecution case. 4. On an examination of the prosecution case, one finds that the Doctor P.W. 5 had opined that the victim was aged about 18-19 years and had carried pregnancy of 28 weeks. Victim, P.W. 3 alleged that she had been forcibly raped by the appellant at the first instance and thereafter physical relationship had been established with her with consent on the promise of getting married to her. It was only when the appellant refused to marry that the present case was instituted. Since the victim was aged about 18-19 years evidently she had reached the age of consent. The fact that she did not report the matter for next six months of the first incident for which there is no reasonable explanation makes the prosecution case highly suspect and therefore I am not inclined to accept the prosecution case. 3 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 03/05.06.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in S.Tr. No. 261/1991/89/1993 is, hereby, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and discharged of the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 12th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-