her writing, and the greeting card Exhibit D-37 was also in her writing. However, she has stated that she wrote Exhibits D-36 & D-37 under duress. She has also admitted that she did not sustain any injury. She has admitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Exhibit P-5, before the Magistrate, she stated that she was in affinity with the accused. Thus, the cross-examination above explicitly shows that the witness is not reliable and she has levelled charges of rape against the accused only to save herself and tried to deny the fact that she had a love affair with the accused. The trial court has also referred to the judgments of the various High Courts, laying down the principles that if the age of the prosecutrix is above 16 years and there are circumstances indicating that the prosecutrix entered into a sexual relationship, then it shall be deemed that the establishment of the sexual relationship was with consent. It is apparent from the record that at the time of the commission of the offence, the age of the victim was above 16 years and the prosecutrix did not denied the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, from the above analysis, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, concluding that no offence is made out against the accused under Sections 376 & 366 of IPC. 16. Upshot to the above discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 363 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already served by him, and the imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained.
