M.R. Shah, J.

1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) passed in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2006, one preferred by the original accused challenging his conviction by the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 376, 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and another filed by the State to enhance the punishment and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, imposed while convicting the original accused for the offences 376, 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, both these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 14.12.2006 passed by the learned trial Court convicting the original accused for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the original accused has preferred present Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2007.

2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in so far as imposing sentence of 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo 30 days SI for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo 15 days SI for the offence under Section 366 and 2 years RI with fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo 15 days SI for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 2007 to enhance the punishment imposed by the learned trial Court.

3. Prosecution case in nutshell are as under:

3.1. An offence being CR-I-No. 100 of 2006 came to be registered with Halol Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the complainant viz., Maniram Shivprasad Kanojiya on 1.5.2006. The complainant in his complaint has narrated that he was residing in Jay Yogeshwarnagar with his family and having one shop and doing business of washer man. The complainant was having wife viz., Indiraben, two sons and two daughter, wherein younger daughter viz., Parul born on 08.12.1991. It was also stated in the complaint that on the day of incident, just adjacent to their house, one Natubhai, who was running Uma Industries in GIDC is residing with his wife and son viz., Amit i.e. the respondent-original accused. The respondent herein - original accused was running tuition classes since last two and half years and every now and then, he used to call the daughter of the complainant viz., Parul and talk with her and hence the complainant also scolded him.

3.2. It was also stated in the complaint that on 26.04.2006, when the complainant and his wife and two sons were at his shop, his nephew viz., Lalchand Ramjag Kanojiya resident of Siddhi Shivsankalp Park, Halol came to his shop along with the younger daughter of the complainant viz. Laxmi and told that the original accused came at about and told him that the respondent - original accused and Parul are going out for a walk, but he did not return back. Upon making inquiry, neither the respondent - original accused nor the victim was found. Accordingly, complaint came to be registered.

3.3. The investigation was carried out by the Police Inspector of Halol Police Station Shri Khant. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of concerned witnesses and also collected documentary evidence including school leaving certificate of the victim. That on 4.6.2006 the victim-Parul and original accused found from Halol Bus stand and after recording their statement both were sent for medical check up. The Investigating Officer seized the cloths of the victim as well as accused under the panchnama. That the original accused came to be arrested on 5.6