Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 85/2013 by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Patan dated 18.12.2014 recording conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code as stated in detail in the impugned judgment.

2. The fact of the case briefly summarized are as follows:--

"2.1 On 14.12.2012, the minor daughter of the complainant is said to have been enticed away by the appellant-accused, for which, complaint came to be filed being C.R. No. I-15/2013 with Patan City 'B' Division Police Station for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. However subsequently, report was made for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the charge for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

2.2 On the basis of the complaint, the investigation was made and chargesheet came to be filed. However as the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions.

2.3 Thereafter, the Court below proceeded with the trial and recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

2.4 After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the Court below recorded further statement of the appellant-accused under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.5 After hearing learned APP as well as learned advocate for the defence, the Court below recorded conviction of the appellant-original accused No. 1 for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal imposing sentence as stated in the impugned judgment."

3. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present appeal on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal inter alia that the Court below has failed to appreciate that it was consensual act and the daughter of the complainant had eloped voluntarily and had accompanied the accused and stayed with him for about 40 days. It was submitted that the Court below has also failed to appreciate the evidence with regard to the age of the victim and has recorded conviction of the appellant-accused erroneously.

4. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Rekha H. Kapadia for the appellant-accused and learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani for the respondent-State.

5. Learned advocate, Ms. Kapadia referred to the background of the facts as well as the testimony of the complainant, mother, PW-3 at Exh. 12 and submitted that as stated in her testimony, the victim had gone out for the domestic work and then, she had not returned and though it is stated that the victim is aged about 15 years, in the cross-examination, it has been admitted that the victim was married to one Govindji before one year of the incident. She has stated that she does not know about the date of birth nor it has been registered anywhere. Learned advocate, Ms. Kapadia, therefore, submitted that the Court below would not have proceeded on the assumption that the victim was minor. Learned advocate, Ms. Kapadia also referred to the testimony of the victim, PW-4 at Exh. 14 and submitted that it has been admitted that she had gone with the accused and had moved from place to place though she has stated that she had cried and requested to go to her mother. She submitted that it is an admitted fact that she had gone with the accused and has not raised any alarm though she had sufficient opportunity. She pointedly referred to the fact that in a rickshaw, they had gone to bus station then, they had moved and in fact for about 1 1/2 month, they stayed together. Therefore, learned advocate, Ms. Kapadia submitted that the testimony of the victim requires closer scrutiny regarding her conduct that she has not raised any alarm even though she had sufficient opportunity. Further she has not resisted nor has made any effort to escape when they