JUDGMENT : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Assailing the legality, validity, correctness of order and judgment dated 15.06.2023 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.14/2023, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, by which he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 376 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. Section 450 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Prosecution Case:- 2. The case of the prosecution as projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that from 04.01.2022 to 27.02.2023 at village Khurusbod, Khandsara, Police Chowki Khandsara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, the appellant on the pretext of marriage committed repeatedly sexual intercourse with the major victim (PW-1) due to which she became pregnant and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that, on 20.03.2023, victim (PW-1) made written complaint (Ex.P/1) to the police that on 04.01.2022 when she had gone to Lolesara Baiji fair, she met the appellant. In the late night, the appellant offered her to drop home and took her on his motorcycle, on the way of her home, the appellant took her in the field and on the pretext of marriage first time committed sexual intercourse and thereafter, he dropped her on her home. Further, on the several occasions the appellant used to visit to her house and made physical relationship with her and on 27.02.2023, when she informed the appellant about her pregnancy, the appellant refused to marry with her pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/2. Crime details forms were prepared vide Exs.P/3 & P/4. Major victim (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. Jyoti A Jasathi (PW-6). Crime details forms were prepared vide Exs.P/3 & P/4. Major victim (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. Jyoti A Jasathi (PW-6). In the medical report (Ex.P/11) neither external nor internal injuries were found in the examination of the victim, however, in the ultrasound report (Ex.P/10), it was found that the victim was carrying pregnancy of 16 weeks. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. 4. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 5. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents, whereas, the appellant in defence has neither any witness nor exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the parties:- 7. Ms. Sareena Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question. She would also submit that the victim (PW-1) was a consenting party and did not inform anyone about the incident though the offence is said to have been committed in her house and when the appellant refused to marry with her then she lodged the report against the appellant. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 8. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsels, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence in question as the victim (PW-1) has clearly implicated the appellant in crime in question. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Ms. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Ms. Varsha Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant, would submit that the victim (PW-1)/complainant has no objection if the appellant is released as the marriage has already been solemnized between the appellant and the victim (PW-1)/complainant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. Discussion and analysis:- 11. It is not in dispute that the victim (PW-1) was major when the offence in question was committed by the appellant i.e. from 04.01.2022 to 27.02.2023. Though the first time i.e. on 04.01.2022, the offence in question was committed by the appellant in the field, but thereafter, the appellant used to visit to the house of the victim (PW-1) where the appellant made physical relationship with the victim. However, about the incident the victim (PW-1) did not inform anyone either in her family or any other person and when she got medically examined (Ex.P/10), the fact came to know that she was carrying pregnancy of 16 weeks and thereafter, the FIR was lodged against the appellant. The victim (PW-1) in her cross-examination before the Court has stated that the house in which she is living, the appellant used to visit and they made physical relationship due to which she became pregnant and only the appellant refused to marry with her, therefore, the FIR was lodged. Since the victim (PW-1) appears to be major and consenting party, the conviction of the appellant for the offences in question is unsustainable and bad in law. Conclusion:- 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be and is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of the charges for offence in question. He is stated to be in jail since 20.03.2023. I direct him to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other offence. 13. This criminal appeal is allowed. 14. The appellant stands acquitted of the charges for offence in question. He is stated to be in jail since 20.03.2023. I direct him to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other offence. 13. This criminal appeal is allowed. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and also the copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.