Honble YADAV, J. – Heard.

(2). Perused the case diary.

(3). According to the medical report the age of the prosecutrix was between 16 to 17 years on the date of incident.

(4). Main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant before me is that from the statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr. P.C. it is evident that the girl did not raise any objection either at the place of incident or at Udaipur. She was also moving with accused persons from Udaipur to Ahmedabad and Ahmedabad to Bombay without raising any objection. The aforesaid conduct of the prosecutrix is sufficient to prove her consent. Thus no offence under Sec. 366-A of I.P.C. of kidnapping of a minor girl is made out against accused applicant.

(5). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that accused applicant Pankaj has not committed offence under Sec. 376 of I.P.C. with prosecutrix. The main accused who is alleged to have committed offence under Sec. 366-A of I.P.C. read with 376 I.P.C. has already been enlarged on bail.

(6). Learned P.P. vehemently oppose the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. According to learned P.P. the statement of prosecutrix rec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document