V.K.Jain, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 3.8.1999 and Order on Sentence dated 6.8.1999 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 363/366/376 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default under Section 376 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in default under Section 366 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or for one month in default under Section 363 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the FIR lodged by Shri Krishan Murari, father of the prosecutrix, on 20.5.1992 was that about one month ago, he and his wife gone to his native place, leaving their children at home. On 14.5.1992, his servant informed him that the prosecutrix, who at that time aged about 13 years, had not come back from the School on 13.5.1992. The complainant alleged that he had come to know that the prosecutrix was taken by appellant Ramvir with him. The appellant was arrested on 27.11.1992 at a bus stand in Delhi and at that time, the prosecutrix was with him.

3. The prosecutrix came in the witness box as PW-3 and stated that on 13.5.1992, at about 7:30 a.m., the appellant who belonged to her village and was known to her, came there and informed her that her father had met with an accident and, therefore, she should accompany him to Kashmiri Gate. She accordingly accompanied the appellant to Kashmiri Gate. Thereafter, the appellant told him that her father had not sustained serious injuries and she should accompanied him to market for purchasing some articles. Noticing the contradiction in the statements made by the appellant, she asked him to tell what exactly the matter was. When the appellant said that he would tell truth later on, she refused to accompany him. Thereupon, the appellant threatened to kill her and her brother in case she did not accompany him and being afraid, she accompanied him. The appellant took him to Loni Border where he kept her in a room which he had taken on rent and committed rape on her by threatening her. Thereafter, he took her to Badayun to the house of her sister. She accompanied the appellant due to threats. In Badayun, he again committed rape on her. She also kept there for two days. He took her to Ludhiana by force. There, also he took a room on rent and kept her. At Ludhiana also, he committed rape against her consent and by extending threats to her. She, however, stated that the appellant used to keep a knife with him. On her repeated insistence and also for the reasons that residents of that locality had become suspicious, the appellant brought her to Delhi, where he was arrested by the Police from a Police Station and she was rescued. The prosecutrix also identified her underwear Ex.P-1 which she was wearing at the time she was rescued by the Police.

4. According to the prosecutrix, on 13.5.1992, she first came with the appellant to I.S.B.T. at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, and noticing the contradiction in the statement made by him to her, she refused to accompany him whereupon he threatened to kill her and her brother in case she did not accompany him. In her statement, the prosecutrix did not allege any such threat on the part of the appellant. She simply stated that from the School, she came to I.S.B.T. and from there, they took a bus and she was taken by the appellant to the house of his sister in a Village Muradabad. Had the appellant really threatened the prosecutrix and her brother as stated by her during trial, she could not have missed this fact while giving statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the deposition of the prosecutrix, as regards the threat alleged to have been given to her is an improvement on her previous statement and appears to be an af