intercourse with a woman who was more than sixteen years old was not an offence. He invited our attention to the finding recorded in the impugned judgment by the High Court. He submitted that the High Court held that the prosecutrix willingly accompanied accused Vijay, who was sitting beside her in the video parlour where the prosecutrix was watching a movie. He pointed out that the High Court held that the prosecutrix had acquaintance with accused Vijay, and he had shown interest in solemnising marriage with her. He submitted that even going by the case made out by the prosecutrix, she walked ahead of the accused Vijay and reached a bridge in the town. Thereafter, accused Vijay, along with two other accused, came there. Her evidence shows that she had several opportunities to raise the alarm but failed to do so. He submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be believed considering her conduct. He submitted that the Sessions Court, on two occasions, acquitted the accused