The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroboration of evidence in cases involving the determination of the age of the prosecutrix and the relevance of consent in the offense of rape.

1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 27/1996 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under sections 363, 366-A and 376 of Indian Penal Code. Maximum sentence of R.I. for seven years is given and all the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Both the sides are heard.

2. Prosecutrix is a daughter of complainant Anna (PW 1). She was studying in 9th standard in a school from Zilla Parishad at Ladsavangi, Tahsil and District Aurangabad at the relevant time. At the relevant time, she was aged about 14 years. A sister of the appellant/accused was a friend of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix used to visit the house of the said friend frequently. The accused was running a cycle shop at the relevant time near his house and so, he could develop sexual relationship with the prosecutrix. He promised her to marry with her and kept the relationship with her. She became pregnant.

3. Prosecutrix was carrying of about two months. On 11.10.1995 at about 8.30 a.m. when prosecutrix visited the house of accused, he took her to a field and there, he said that he would take her to Aurangabad where he would marry her. He took her first to village Adegaon (Sadak) and then to Aurangabad. In Aurangabad, accused took a room on rent basis where he kept the prosecutrix. Maternal uncle of the accused was making arrangement of their lunch, dinner etc. She was kept there till 18.10.1995.

4. In the meanwhile, when the father of the prosecutrix realized that prosecutrix was not available at home on 11.10.1995, after the morning, he searched for her. He took the search at various places of his relatives and then on 14.10.1995 he gave missing report in Karmad Police Station.

5. A person from the village of the complainant noticed that accused was posting letters in the post box of village. He and some other persons had suspicion against the appellant that he had taken the prosecutrix away. They took his letter in custody and from that letter, they got the address of the prosecutrix from Aurangabad. Then the relatives of the parents of the accused were contacted and the prosecutrix was brought to her village. She was taken to Karmad Police Station, where her statement came to be recorded. As her age was around 14 years, crime came to be registered for aforesaid offences against the appellant. During the course of investigation, statements of parents and other witnesses came to be recorded. Prosecutrix and accused were referred for medical examination. It became clear that prosecutrix was pregnant from appellant. The statement of land-lady of the house, where the prosecutrix was kept by the accused came to be recorded and after completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed for aforesaid offences. The charge was framed and plea was recorded. Accused took the defence of total denial. It appears that during cross examination, the defence counsel tried to develop defence of consent of prosecutrix. It was also suggested that the prosecutrix was major, but the accused was minor at the relevant time. No such probability could be created. The Trial Court has believed the witnesses and has convicted the appellant for all the aforesaid offences. The same points were argued in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. For proving the offence of kidnapping and also for proving the offence of rape, in view of the defence taken by the accused, it was necessary for prosecution to prove that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years at the relevant time. If the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years, then there was no question of considering the defence of consent of prosecutrix for giving decision on the charge of rape. In Criminal Appeal No. 499/2012 decided with Criminal Appeal No. 500/2012 on 11.9.2013 [Between Mahesh Tarachand Suryawanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra], this Court had an