JUDGMENT

R. N. BISWAL, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.4.1992 passed by the Asst.Sessions Judge, Anandapur in S.T. case No.19/103 of 1991 acquitting the accused persons of the charge under Sections 366/376/368 of I.P.C.

2. The case as unfolded by prosecution is that on 10.10.90 at about midnight accused Naresh Chandra Barik along with accused Satrughan Ojha kidnapped the victim, a girl aged about 14 years from her house to compel her to marry with accused Naresh Chandra Barik. They kept her confined in different places including the house of other 3 co-accused and committed rape on her in village Kachara Sahi. The parents and other family members searched for the alleged victim girl and came to know that she had been kid¬napped by the above named two accused persons to compel her to marry accused Naresh Chandra Barik, but the father of the victim could not report this incident at the police station immediately, because of death of his father and for his own illness. However, after he came round, on 25.10.90 he reported the incident in writing before the O.I.C., Ghashipura P.S. (P.W.10) which was treated as F.I.R. As the allegation contained in the F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case, I.O. registered the case and took up investigation. In course of investigation he examined the wit¬nesses, seized some material objects and on 12.1.91 the C.I. of Police, Anandapur (P.W.12) took charge of investigation of the case from him. After completion of investigation P.W.12 submitted charge sheet under Sections 366/376 of I.P.C. against accused Naresh Chandra Barik and Satrughana Ojha and under Section 368 against the other accused persons, whereunder they faced trial before the Asst. Sessions Judge, Anandapur. In order to establish its case prosecution examined 15 witnesses, whereas accused persons examined 4 witnesses to prove their innocence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the victim was aged more than 16 years at the time of occurrence; that she had love affairs with accused Naresh Chandra Barik; that she voluntarily left her parent’s house and cohabited with him and that accused Satrughana Ojha did not commit any rape on her. Since prosecution failed to prove the allegation of kidnapping or abduction against the main two accused, namely Naresh Chandra Barik and Satrughana Ojha, consequently the other three accused persons were also acquitted.

Being aggrieved with the said order of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal, as mentioned earlier.

3. P.W.3, the maternal uncle of the alleged victim (P.W.6) deposed that there was love affair between accused Naresh Chandra Barik and the victim prior to occurrence. On 11.10.1990 he found P.W.6 and accused Naresh in village Nahankul. Despite his persua¬sion not to marry accused Naresh, P.W.6 went to a temple at village Nahankul, brought a garland and told to marry accused Naresh by garlanding him. A number of love letters written by the victim to accused Naresh Chandra Barik were seized and proved vide Ext.A series. As per the prosecution case the alleged victim was carried to different places by accused Naresh Chandra Barik from 10.10.90 to 23.11.90. If the victim was not willing to move with him she could have very well returned to her house, but she did not do that. As transpires from the evidence of P.W.8, on 11.10.90, when P.W.6 and accused Naresh were there in his house, about 50 persons of Kachara Sahi came to his house and took P.W.6 to Ananta Basudev Temple at Kachara Sahi. It transpires from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 that they married there in presence of a number of persons. So, it cannot be sad that accused Naresh com¬pelled P.W.6 to marry him. The alleged victim voluntarily accom¬panied accused Naresh Chandra Barik to different places and mar¬ried him of her own accord. If there was any physical relation¬ship between Naresh Chandra Barik and the victim, it was with her consent. Once it is held tha