Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.

In this criminal appeal, challenge is levied to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10-12-1998 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Sessions Division Rajnandgaon, MP (now in CG) in Sessions Trial No. 88/98 whereby and whereunder he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

Appellants No. 2 Mohd. Sabir and appellant No. 3 Mohd. Rijwan

Sr. No.	Offence u/S.	Sentence	In default of payment of fine
1.	363, Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')	RI for 7 years + fine of Rs. 2,000/-	Additional RI for 6 months
2.	366, IPC	RI for 7 years + fine of Rs. 2,000/-	Additional RI for 6 months

Appellants No. 1 Shamshuddin

Sr. No.	Offence u/S.	Sentence	In default of payment of fine
1.	363, Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')	RI for 7 years + fine of Rs. 2,000/-	Additional RI for 6 months
2.	366, IPC	RI for 7 years + fine of Rs. 2,000/-	Additional RI for 6 months
3	376, IPC	RI for 10 years + fine of Rs. 3,000/-	Additional RI for 6 months

Additional RI for 6 months All the substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. In brief, the prosecution story is that at the time of alleged incident prosecutrix was about 14 years old. She was a resident of Gol Bajar, Khairagarh. She and appellant No. 1 Mohd. Shamshuddin were agreed to perform marriage. He had promised her that he will give divorce to her married wife. They used to send letters to each other. On 28-4-1997 at about 1.30 pm she had left her paternal house, after sitting in the bicycle of appellant No. 3 Mohd. Rijwan, she went to Dau Chaura. Near the burial ground she sat on Moped of appellant No. 1 Mohd. Shamshuddin, they went to village Garrapar. Thereafter they, appellant No. 2 Mohd. Sabir went to Jabalpur by Tampo Trax. Thereafter they went to Damoh where they stayed about 1 and half months in the house of Julla Begum who is paternal aunt of appellant No. 2 Mohd. Sabir. Thereafter they went Jabalpur and resided in a rented house. Thereafter she and appellant No.1 Mohd. Shamshuddin went to Kawardha. Thereafter on saying of appellant No. 1 Shamshuddin she returned back in her paternal house. Meanwhile on 1-5-1997 her father had lodged an FIR in police station Khairagarh. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against appellants. The trial Court framed charges against all the appellants under Sections 363, 366, IPC and against appellant no. 1, charge of offence under Section 376, IPC was also framed. They abjured the charges and faced trial. To bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. They did not examine any witness on his defence. After conclusion of the trial, trial court convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal.

4. Counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the age of prosecutrix was below 18 years at the time of the alleged incident. She was a consenting party. Thus, aforesaid conviction and sentences are bad in the eyes of law and not sustainable. Thus, aforesaid conviction and sentences may be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted of the aforesaid charges.

5. The Govt. Adv. Appearing for the State submitted that aforesaid conviction and sentences are based on clinching evidence led by the prosecution. He supported the aforesaid conviction and sentences and submitted that no interference is called for by this Court.

6. The first and foremost question for adjudication before this court is as to whether prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on 28-4-1997.

7. P.W. 1 Abdul Rafiq who is father of the prosecutrix says in para 4 and 7 of his statement given on oath that on 28-4-1997 prosecutrix had given the examination of Class 8th. At the time of alleged incident, her d