IMPORTANT POINTS: (1) There can be no iota of doubt that on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable and beyond reproach, a conviction can be based.
(2) When two dates have been forthcoming on record regarding the age of the victim, then, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to take extra care before filing the charge-sheet.

G.B. Shah, J.

1. As the common judgment and order are under challenge in the present appeals, the same were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment and order.

2. Present appeals assail the judgment and order dated 07/03/2014, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2013, whereby, the present appellants - original accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC'). The appellant herein - original accused No. 1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for 10 days and for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, to undergo SI for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for 10 days. For the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, the appellant herein - original accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo SI for seven years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for 10 days. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2014 has been filed by the accused No. 2 whereas, the Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2014 has been filed by the accused No. 1 against conviction. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 02/02/2013 at about 18:00 hours, the accused allegedly kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant, aged about 15 years and 04 months, from his lawful guardianship, giving false temptation, knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, made her to sit on a motorcycle and took her to a lake situated at Village: Mahudha and thereafter, at Village: Sarsa and the accused No. 1 allegedly raped her repeatedly and for the said offence, a complaint for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 r/w. 114 of the IPC came to be lodged against them.

3.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court at Nadiad. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to bring home the charge against the original accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and produced following documentary evidence, as under:

S/N.	Name	Exh.
ORAL EVIDENCE
1	PW1 Dr. Trupatiben Gunvantbhai Prajapati	16
2	PW2 Vitthalbhai Manibhai Thakore	25
3	PW3 Victim	27
4	PW-4 Jashiben Vitthalbhai Thakore	28
5	PW5 Jitubhai Vitthalbhai Thakore	29
6	PW6 Bharatbhai Chandubhai Thakore	30
7	PW7 Jashbhai Ambala Patel	31
8	PW8 Vinodbhai Chandubhai Thakore	32
9	PW9 Pintubhai Maganbhai Thakore	36
10	PW10 Rasulmiya Isamiya Malek	40
11	PW11 Ashokbhai Ramabhai Rohit	42
12	PW12 Shaileshbhai Harmanbhai Rathod	43
13	PW13 Dineshbhai Prabhatbhai Sodha	45
14	PW14 Jahirhussain Ahemadmiya Malek	46
15	PW15 Manharbhai Bhaylalbhai Patel	50
16	PW16 Dhirajkumar Chandulal Patel	51
17	PW17 Urmiben Kanaiyalal Parmar	54
18	PW18 Dhruvrajsinh Rajendrasinh Gohil	57
19	PW19 Rajubhai Gandabhai Desai	60
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
1	Complaint