Surinder Sarup, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Ctfurt of Shri K.C. Sood, Sessions Judge, Kangra division at Dharmshala, dated 18.05.1990, whereby respondent R. L. Narayan, who at the relevant tine was an Army personnel, has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is that Raj Kumari (PW-14), who is the prosecutrix in this case is the daughter of Gurbachan Ram, who is also an Army person. At the relevant time, i.e. in September, 1987, he was posted at Holta Camp, Palampur. Respondent was a Havildar and was also posted at the same place. Both of them, i.e. the prosecutrix and the respondent were neighbours. The respondent is married and was living with his family in those days. Both the families were on visiting terms with each other, being neighbours.

3. On 11.09.1987, the prosecutrix went to her School as usual to take her papers. After doing so, she left for Palampur in the company of the respondent and did not return home. She was ultimately recovered from Haldwani on 17.10.1987 from the house of Nain Singh (PW-5) where she was living with his family.

4. The version of the prosecutrix is that, being neighbours, they were on visiting terms and she used to call the respondent as uncle. On 11.09.1987, she took her science paper and after completing the same, she came to the bus stand alongwith her friend, i.e Vandana. The respondent met her at the bus stand. He had brought a jeep with him. Both of them boarded the jeep and hereafter went to a restaurant where they had tea. The respondent then disclosed to her that they would go to Pathankot, where he will buy her good clothes. They then boarded a bus and reached Pathankot in the evening. At Pathankot, the respondent bought a suit for her. They spent the night in a hotel, where the respondent is alleged to have raped the prosecutrix by having forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the next morning, they both left for Delhi. At Delhi also, they stayed in a hotel. There also they had sexual intercourse, though according to the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent. They stayed in Delhi for two days and from there, they went to Tirupati, Respondent brought the prosecutrix back to Delhi from Tirupati and from Delhi they both came to Pathankot and then they went to Haldwani. Thereafter the respondent left the prosecutrix in the house of one Nain Singh at Haldwani. The respondent used to write letters to the prosecutrix but had forbidden her to do so, lest they should be discovered. After some days, the police came to Haldwani and brought her back to Palampur.

5. On a case having been registered, investigation was conducted, curing the course of which, the suit which was purchased by the respondent for the prosecutrix and the photographs of .the respondent and the prosecutrix together, which they had taken during the jaunt at India Gate and Rajghat, were taken into possession.

6. Ultimately, a charge was framed for the offences under Sections 366/3 76 I.P.C. against the respondent for having abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape on her. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

7. The first factor to be considered in this case is the age of the prosecutrix as the commission of the alleged offence under Section 366 I.P.C. depends on this. As per para 7 of the impugned judgment, the Public Prosecutor, who appeared before the trial court admitted that there is no credible evidence on record to show that Raj Kumari was less than 18 years of age at the crucial time.

8. The prosecution has produced three sets of evidence in order to prove the age of the prosecutrix, namely, the ossification test conducted by the radiologist, the certificate issued by the Headmistress of Government Girls High School, Palarapur, wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix is indicated to be 10.07.1972 and the oral evidence of her father, i.e. Gur-bachan Ram (PW