A.P. THAKER, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Sec. 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by appellant-accused, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21st December, 2013 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar Camp at Botad in Sessions Case No. 118 of 2013 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sees. 363 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and was awarded simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-; in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and simple imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default of payment of fine thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year respectively.

2. The prosecution case as revealed from the record is that the victim was abducted and kidnapped by the appellant-accused and she was alleged to have been raped by the accused and for that offence, the complaint was lodged by his father before the Botad Police Station and it was registered as I.C.R. No. 45 of 2013. The accused was arrested and necessary investigation was carried out by the concerned police and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class of Botad which was registered as Criminal Case No. 436 of 2013. However, as the offence was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 118 of 2013.

3. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar Camp at Botad, has framed charges against the accused at Exh. 5 and has recorded plea of the accused. Whereupon, the accused has denied the charges and prayed for trial. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and has produced certain documentary evidence. After conclusion of the trial, the accused has been examined under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thereafter, on hearing both the sides and perusing the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sees. 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him for the said offence as mentioned hereinabove. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused from the offence punishable under Sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the accused has preferred the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the age of the victim at the time of offence was between 13 to 16 years. It is also contended that there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that accused has enticed victim and kidnapped her from the custody of her guardian and had carried her to Mumbai and he had also done sexual intercourse with prosecutrix without her consent. According to the appellant, as per the version of the prosecutrix, she has herself willingly gone with the appellant-accused. It is also contention of the appellant that the appellant and the prosecutrix run together and both of them were in love and decided not to live without each other. It is also contended that the complainant himself admits that the age of the prosecutrix was less than 18 years, and there is variation and material contradiction. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned. While relying upon the decision reported in the case of Deelip Sing v. State of Bihar, 2005 (1) SCC 88, it is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years. While referring to the deposition of the P.W. 4 - Dr. Preshkumar Jerambhai at Exh. 11 and P.W. 5 - Dr. Vijaybhai Jivrajbhai at Exh. 20 who have examined t