relationship. This relationship has continued for seven good years on the pretext that the appellant would marry with her. Not only this, in the year 2018 she got pregnant and she was aborted and lastly about a month ago, the appellant has declined to marry with her, on this factual matrix of the case, the present FIR was got registered. As per medical report, the age of the girl is opined as she was 19 years of age but in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she is aged about 27 years. In her medical report, there is nothing abnormal was deducted but in her statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has almost retreited the same story has mentioned in the FIR. It is further contended that the appellant and the girl was a student of B.T.C., a well educated girl, developed an amount of intimacy with the appellant and thereafter, cross all limits, establishes physical relationship with the appellant and continued to do so for seven good years, clearly indicates that she was in consentual relationship with the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court that to the citation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR2020SC4535 , (ii) Sonu @ Shubhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2021 (SC) 163 and (iii) P ramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2019) 9 SCC 608.
