( 1 ) THE then learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Baroda acquitted the respondent charged with the offences under Secs. 363, 366, 376, 506 part 2 and Sec. 201, Indian Penal Code, delivering the judgment on 21st July 1990 in Sessions Case No. 206 of 1989 on his file. The appellant-State, being aggrieved by the same, has preferred this appeal before us.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that Bhikhiben alias bhagwatiben, the daughter of Ramanbhai Panchal residing at village Bhoj had gone to Utiya along with Shantaben and Surajben as Arvindbhai, the son of Shanabhai kalabhai, was to marry. She joined the marriage party. After the Samaiya was over , the respondent showing the knife frightened her and succeeded in taking her aside. He then took her to some isolated place where he showing the knife intimidated her. Being put to fear of instant death or hurt she succumbed to the ill-will of the prurient respondent. She was made to put off her clothes and lie down. The respondent then against her will and desire raped her, as a result she was defiled. She was asked not to tell any one about her defloration. She was also in this regard threatened with dire consequences. Meanwhile, owing to rustle the respondents could guess someone was coming. The respondent pouring water on her clothes fled away. She was then taken to the place of marriage by those who had rushed to the place of offence. She informed her friends Shantaben and Surajben and back to village Bhoj along with the marriage party. Because of minacity she pretended about her drenched clothes but after going back home she narrated her miseries and woes to her mother. She was taken to the Doctor and thereafter a complaint was lodged in the police station at Padra. The police officer of that police station initiated the investigation. At the conclusion thereof, he filed the charge-sheet against the respondent before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Padra. As the learned Magistrate was not competent to hear and decide the case of rape, he committed the case to the Court of Session at Baroda. The case then came to be registered as Sessions case No. 206 of 1989. The learned Sessions Judge at Baroda assigned the matter to the then learned Assistant Judge for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The learned Judge below then heard both the parties and framed the charges at Exh. 3. The respondent pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried submitting that he was wrongly involved because of the rivalries of two factions in the village. The learned judge at the conclusion of the hearing, appreciating the evidence, accepted the case of the prosecution on all other counts but found that the identification parade was not held as per the requirements of law. With the result, according to him the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent of the offences with which he was charged. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the appellant-State has preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) MR. Divetia, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the appellant submitted that the learned Judge believed the case of the prosecution on all other issues, except that of the identification parade, which was the error. The identification parade held was in consonance with law. The learned Judge below ought to have convicted the respondent. The reasonings of the lower Court were illogical and unconvincing. Mr. Budhbhatti, the learned Advocate representing the respondent submitted that the judgment and order of the lower Court were not on the verges of perversity and there was no need to set the evaluation right. In fact, the learned Judge had committed no errors which would warrant the interference of this Court.

( 4 ) IN law even if with free consent a person subjects the girl, below 16 years of age to sexual intercourse, the offence of rape is committed and so consent of such gi