Consent obtained under false pretenses of marriage does not absolve the accused of criminal liability for statutory rape.

1. The present appeal under S.374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the Appellant assailing the judgment dated 12-1-2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1999. By the impugned judgment, the Court below has found the Appellant to be guilty of having committed the offence punishable under S.376 of IPC and upon conviction sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the Prosecutrix (PW - 1) in the instant case is a minor and it is said that the Appellant on the pretext of marrying the Prosecutrix had initially befriended her and thereafter it is said that he had maintained physical relationship with the Prosecutrix. He got physical more than 4-5 times with the Prosecutrix during the period after December, 1997 onwards when for the first time the Appellant had met the Prosecutrix. Subsequently, it is said that because of physical relationship that the Appellant had maintained with the Prosecutrix she got conceived and finally she gave birth to a baby girl. It is said that after the girl was born, the parents of the Prosecutrix and the Prosecutrix went to the house of the Appellant asking him to keep the Prosecutrix as his wife on account of the fact that it was his physical relationship with the Prosecutrix by virtue of which she got conceived and gave birth to a baby girl. The Appellant initially said to have refused to marry the Prosecutrix but subsequently asked the father of the Prosecutrix to pay an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to marry the Prosecutrix. It is thereafter that the Prosecutrix and her parents had gone to the Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh and lodged an FIR alleging the misdeed against the Appellant stating that on the pretext of marriage the Appellant is said to have ravished the Prosecutrix and in the course she got conceived and also given birth to a baby girl and after conceiving the Appellant is said to have refused to keep the Prosecutrix as is wife.

3. After the necessary investigations were completed, charge - sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the Sessions Court at Raigarh where the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1999. During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. After the trial was concluded, the Court below reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts of the Appellant ravishing the Prosecutrix a minor girl, and found him guilty of having committed the offence under S.376 of IPC and upon convicting him for the said offence sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecution initially has failed to prove the age of the Prosecutrix so far as she being a minor. The second ground is the fact that if the case of the prosecution itself is taken into consideration it would not be a case under S.376 of IPC rather it is a case where the Prosecutrix and the Appellant had a consensual relationship and it is a case of consent on the part of the Prosecutrix while maintaining the physical relationship with the Appellant. He further submitted that the Prosecutrix has not been subjected to medical examination so as to determine her age. It was also contended by the Appellant that the prosecution story also stands collapsed on the simple reason of an inordinate delay in lodging of FIR inasmuch as accordin