to P.W3, the victim and her parents, the Headmaster P.W9 and the Doctor, who had examined the victim. Admittedly, there is no Ossification Test conducted on the victim. The Doctor P.W13, who had examined the victim would state that the hymen was not intact and there was a possibility that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. P.W1, the victim would admit that she had love affair with the appellant and that she had voluntarily gone with the appellant on the date of occurrence. Her Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C statement is corroborated by her deposition in the Court. She would admit in the cross examination that her parents opposed her relationship with the appellant and that she had called the appellant to take her, since her parents were forcing her to get married to someone else. Similarly, P.W2 the mother of the victim would state that she was aware of the relationship of the appellant and her daughter. The deposition of P.W2 and P.W3 would also suggest that they were aware of the relationship and the appellant had not forcibly taken the victim. The evidence of P.W4, the brother of the victim would also suggest that the relationship was consensual. P.W18, the Investigating Officer would confirm that the relationship was consensual and the victim had gone with the appellant on her own. The relevant portion of P.W18 evidence is reads as follows:
