As per case facts, the prosecutrix, aged between 15 years 8 months and 16 years 4 months, went missing. Her father suspected the appellant, a neighbor, of kidnapping her for ... marriage. She was recovered from the appellant's village and alleged forced sexual intercourse and assault. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for kidnapping, rape, and assault. The appellant appealed, arguing the physical relations were consensual, and her age (interpreted as over 16 years from the radiological report's upper limit) meant she could consent under the unamended Section 375 IPC. The question arose whether the prosecutrix, deemed to be over 16 years based on the upper age limit of the radiological report, could have provided valid consent under the unamended Section 375 IPC, thereby absolving the appellant of rape charges. Finally, the Court ruled that, considering the prosecutrix's age to be above 16 years, the statutory age of consent under the unamended Section 375 IPC was met. Coupled with inconsistencies in her testimony, lack of corroborative medical evidence for assault, and unreliable recovery witnesses, the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges, receiving the benefit of the doubt.