( 1 ) THE Appellant State of Gujarat is aggrieved by the acquittal judgment of the respondent-accused Babu @ Roni Manilal rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1984 acquitting the respondent-accused of the charges under secs. 363 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE facts shortly stated are that the prosecutrix Bai Minakshi daughter of Maganlal Bhikhabhai of village Rajpara had gone on 9 at about 4-00 p. m. to the dispensary of Dr. Patel for being treated for fever diarrhoea and vomit. She was accompanied by her sister Jyotsna. However Jyotsna returned alone and told her mother Parvatiben that Minakshiben the prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital and she had asked her to convey that her father should go to look after her health the next day. Therefore Parvatiben on the next day went to Dr. Patels dispensary at Talaja to inquire after Minakshiben but Dr. Patel told her that he had administered injection to Minakshiben and had allowed her to go she was not admitted in the hospital. Thereafter Parvatiben inquired at other dispensaries. She then informed the Police Station that her daughter had gone away to some place. The information was given at the Police Station by Parvati on 10 In that it was not stated that she was kidnapped but that she had run away to some unknown place. On 12-7-1984 Parvatiben gave a second complaint at the Talaja Police Station to the effect that her servant Babu who was working in her lodge had enticed her daughter Minakshiben away with a view to having sexual intercourse with her. Parvatibens husband Maganlal came to know that she had gone to village Mandal in Viramgam taluka. Police then investigated the complaint. With the rest of the details as regards investigation we are not very much concerned in this judgment.

( 3 ) MR. M. A. Bukhari the learned Additional Public Prosecutor took us through the evidence in the matter and particularly the evidence of Dr. Patel P. W Exh. 7. Dr. Jayshriben (P. W. 4 Exh. 9) Dr. Mahendrakumar Prabhudas (P. W. 5. Exh. 25 ). Dr. Nareshbhai Amrutlal (P. W. II Exh. 28) who proved an entry in the school register as well as an entry in the Vahalipatrak as well as the evidence of Maganlal Bhikhabhai father of the prosecutrix P. W. 12 Exh. 31 and Parvatiben Maganlal P. W. 6 Exh. 18. He also read out the relevant portions of the judgment of the trial Court.

( 4 ) ON the careful scrutiny of the evidence before us we are of the view that the learned trial Judge has reached a correct conclusion in acquitting the accused of the charges which were levelled against him. This being an acquittal judgment we would indeed be slow to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court even if on some of the minor aspects we had not agreed with the trial Judge. In this case however we are of the view that the reasoning of the trial Judge for the acquittal of the accused is sound inasmuch as it is based on evidence and the inference drawn by him from the evidence is also unimpeachable. Since we are agreeing with the trial Judges we do not propose to set out in our judgment the same reasoning to come to the same conclusion to which the trial Judge did. We only propose to bring out the basic infirmity in the prosecution case which alone would go to show than the rest of the judgment of the trial Court does not need any further discussion.

( 5 ) IT is trite to observe that in the charges under secs. 363 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code the age of the prosecutrix is very important. If there is any reasonable doubt about the age of the prosecutrix the prosecution case must necessarily fail. In the present case the trial Judge has entertained a reasonable doubt about the prosecution having proved the prosecutrixs age to be below 18 for the purpose of the offence of kidnapping and below 16 for the purpose of considering her consent for the offence under sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On reading the relevant evidenc