( 1 ) ADMIT. Mr. J. U. Mehta PP waives service on behalf of the State. Mr. A. H. Mehta the learned advocate for the appellant -accused has confined his arguments only with regard to sentence and has not raised any contention against the conviction.

( 2 ) THE appellant-accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under sec. 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1982 and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years on each count and the substantive sentence of imprisonment impressed on the accused on each count is ordered to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge Surendranagar declined to take a lenient view of the matter probably on the ground that the virginity of the prosecutrix has been affected permanently and her reputation has been tarnished for the whole life. This is bound to happen in any rape case. The circumstances of the case clearly show that both the accused as well as the prosecutrix are of immature age and the prosecutrix used to meet the accused often and on. She willingly participated to elopement from the house (at village Chotila) and well to Ahmedabad and then to Surendranagar. There she stayed wit