35.In view of the fact that the Appellant/Accused had ravished P.W.1 (victim girl) and P.W.1 herself had given consent to the act of sexual intercourse committed on her body by the Appellant either on 16.03.2012 or on earlier occasions three months prior to that, and also this Court, taking note of the fact that P.W.4 Doctor had given Age Certificate of the P.W.1 viz., Ex.P15 that she was about 16 years and below 18 years, the trial Court had rightly found the Appellant/Accused not guilty in respect of an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. Since the sexual intercourse had taken place between the Appellant/Accused and P.W.1 (victim girl) not only on 16.03.2012, but three months prior to that also, this Court is of the considered view that the victim girl (P.W.1) had given consent to the act of intercourse and since she was not under the age of 16 years and gave a consent for the sexual intercourse, this Court comes to a consequent conclusion that the offences under Sections 375 and 450 I.P.C. were not attracted. However, the Appellant/Accused's act of ravishing P.W.1 on 16.03.2012 and three months prior to that of course based on dishonest inducement come squarely within the ambit of Section 417 I.P.C., as opined by this Court. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court, in finding the Appellant/Accused guilty and resultantly, convicting him and directing him to undergo a sentence of one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. and with a direction to pay Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, three months Simple Imprisonment, does not suffer from any flaw. Likewise, the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/-, ordered to be paid to P.W.1 towards mental agony and to the damage caused to her body by the Appellant/Accused (from and out of the fine sum of Rs.50,000/-), also is not displaced by this Court. Looking at from any angle, the present Appeal sans merits. Conclusion:
