Important Point- Provision prevailing at the date of commission of the offence is applicable in criminal cases and there is no retrospective application of criminal provisions.

M.R. Shah, J.

1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 12.10.2015 in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa at Banaskantha, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant herein - original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo further four months for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and has imposed sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo further four months, by which, the learned trial Court has imposed the sentence of life imprisonment (till his last breath) and fine of Rs. 1 lacs and in default to undergo one year for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant herein - original accused has preferred present Criminal Appeal.

2.0. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under:

2.1. That one Natvarlal Valchandbhai Soni - father of the victim lodged the FIR with the Dhanera Police Station being CR-I-28 of 2009 initially for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the case on behalf of the original complainant that he stayed at Dhanera and he has two daughters and one son and the eldest daughter - victim was aged 17 years and younger daughter is Khusbu. It was alleged in the complaint that on 11.12.2009 after taking dinner at about 10 p.m. his both the daughters were sleeping in the inside room and he, his wife and son were sleeping in the front room of the house. That about 6 a.m. in the morning, the mother of the victim went to the room and found that his elder daughter is missing and door from the rare portion of the house was open. When they asked younger daughter Khusbu, she started crying and on asking she toll that at about 12.30 mid night somebody knocked the door and the victim open the same and accused Himmatbhai Shantilal Rathod and Vinod Manojbhai Thakker went inside and both of them gave the threats and therefore, they did not shout and both the accused stolen the gold ornaments and took the victim and they run away in the white colour Alto Car. He further stated that as the minor Khusbu was afraid and/or frighten, she did not informed anybody in the night and she went to sleep. It was further alleged that on inquiry it was found that gold ornaments from the safe vault was stolen. It was further stated in the FIR that thereafter he called his brother and informed them about the incident and they went to the house of the accused Himmatbhai Shantilal Rathod and Vinod Manojbhai Thakker and inquired, however both of them have not found at the respective house. That they did lodged any complaint till 16.12.2009, due to the fear in the society. However, as despite due inquiry, their daughters was not found and therefore, complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR with the Dhanea Police Station for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, accused and victim were found out and after recording the statement of the victim, Investigating Officer made the report to add offence under Section 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid FIR was investigated by one Shri Ranjitsinh Athesinh Jadeja PW No. 11. He recorded the statement of the concerned witnesses. He also sent the victim to the hospital for medical examination. The victim was examined by the Medical Officer - Dr. Niteshkumar Dabhi - PW No. 8. The Investigating Officer also obtained proof with respect to age of the victim and it was found that at the time of date of incident the victim was aged 17 years and 10 months. That thereafter, Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused in t