MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By the present appeal, Dharambir challenges the impugned judgment dated 23rd January, 2001 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366A/506(II)/342/ 376 IPC in FIR No. 884/1997 registered at PS Nandnagri and the order on sentence of the even date directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Dharambir contends that the age of the prosecutrix has not been duly proved. No bone x-ray was conducted despite the specific advise by PW-3 Dr. Manjusha. The knives used during the incident have not been recovered. The prosecutrix stated that the appellant and the other assailants were not known to her prior to the incident. The prosecution had failed to pr