The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the need for the prosecutrix's testimony to inspire confidence in cases of rape and abduction.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant impugning the judgment dated 15.10.2013 and order of sentence dated 23.10.2013 whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 363/366/419/376 IPC and sentenced as under:

(i)	U/S 363 IPC	to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one year.
(ii)	U/S 366 IPC	to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one year.
(iii)	U/S 419 IPC	to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months.
(iv)	U/S 376 IPC	to undergo RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for two years.

2. This appeal has come up for hearing pursuant to the directions issued for expediting hearing in appeals filed by persons in custody (with sentence more than seven years and upto ten years).

3. The case FIR No. 34/2011 has been registered on the basis of statement made by Sh. Ram Bharose He reached the police station Sultan Puri on 2nd February, 2011 at 7:25 PM and reported that his daughter ‘P’ (name withheld to conceal her identity), aged about 13 years had left home in the morning for her school. She was a student of 8th standard. At about 9:00 AM he received a call from the school that his daughter had not reached the school. He suspected that his daughter had been induced by Jakir, s/o Bundu Khan, permanent resident of Village Aarthi, Distt. Hathras, Tehsil Sadabad, U.P. but at that time residing at RZ-K 2/19B, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi. He prayed for legal action against him.

4. While lodging the FIR the complainant had also given the description of his daughter as well of the school uniform she was wearing at the time of leaving home for her school.

5. After registration of case FIR No.34/2011 under Section 363 IPC investigation was handed over to SI Mukesh Meena. When SI Mukesh Meena proceeded on leave, further investigation was conducted by ASI Ravinder. On 18th February, 2011, the prosecutrix ‘P’ along with the appellant/accused Jakir was present at Railway Station Tehsil Sadabad, Hathras, U.P. At the pointing out of Dhyan Singh, uncle/chacha of the prosecutrix, they were apprehended. After recovery of the prosecutrix, she was subjected to medical examination. She was produced before the ld. Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was arrested and medically examined. After completion of investigation, appellant was sent to face trial for committing offence punishable under Sections 363/366/376/419 IPC. Section 419 IPC was added on the basis of statement made by ‘P’ that the accused represented himself to be Hindu boy with name Anshuman but subsequently she came to know that he was a Muslim.

7. During trial before the Court of Sessions, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in all in support of its case. The prosecutrix was examined as PW1, other public witnesses namely Ram Bharose - father of the prosecutrix and Dhyan Singh – Uncle of the prosecutrix were examined as PW-2 and PW-9 respectively. In his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant/accused pleaded innocence.

8. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 363/366/376/419 IPC and sentenced in the manner state above.

9. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the prosecutrix was having love affair with the appellant. She left home of her own to marry and live with the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case so far as the consent of the prosecutrix is concerned, learned Trial Court considered the same to be immaterial for the