1. - This Criminal Appeal u/s. 374 Cr.P.C. by appellant- Pintu @ Lal Singh arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur by which the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant for offence u/ss. 376(2)(g) and 366 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days on the another count.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that PW-7 Roshan Singh submitted a written report, Ex.P/7 at Police Station Sewar alleging therein that on 14.1.1999 in the night at 2.00 a.m., co-accused-Lukman and three others induced and kidnapped his daughter aged 16 years. The complainant stated that he can identify the accused, if confronted. The complainant plain ant specifically involved one Laxmi W/o Pooran Jat of his village in kidnapping his daughter. Laxmi happened to be the sister of accused-Lukman. According to the report, the accused had stayed at the residence of Laxmi on 13.1.1999. It was alleged that accused, with an intention to steal, also took away one gold ring, a gold chain and gold ear-rings. It was alleged that Bhagwani and Samandar had seen the accused taking away his daughter in the night at 2.00 p.m. Thereupon, the complainant and his neighbours contacted Mst. Laxmi in the night itself and some altercation took place between them. According to the report, Laxmi admitted the fact of girl being kidnapped by the accused and assured that girl would be returned within 3-4 days.

3. On the above report, police registered a case for offence u/ss. 363, 366 & 379 IPC vide FIR Ex.P/8 and proceeded with the investigation. In the course of investigation, the police inspected the site, prepared site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of victim girl was also recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination to find out whether she was ravished or not. Co-accused along with appellant were arrested and on completion of usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused.

4. On the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, the learned trial Court framed charges for offence u/ss. 366 & 376(2)(g) IPC against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After the prosecution evidence was complete, the appellant was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness (DW-1) Ashok was examined.

6. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge found the accused-appellant guilty of having committed offence punishable u/ss. 366 & 376(2)(g) IPC and according convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated herein above. Hence this appeal against conviction.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, the evidence and material on record.

8. In the cases involving sexual assault, the age of the prosecutrix plays vital role. Therefore, firstly it has to be seen as to what was the age of the prosecutrix at the time of commission of offence. The School transfer certificate, Ex.P/2 produced on record mentions the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 25.8.1983. Thus, accordingly to this certificate her age at the time of incident was 15 years 4 months and 15 days. The prosecutrix herself in her examination in chief has stated her date of birth as 25.8.1983 but she was not subjected to cross-examination on the point of her date of birth. PW-13 Dr. Sahab Singh who had examined the prosecutrix has deposed that on the basis of X-ray report and physical examinati