M.R. Verma, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.12.2003 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur whereby the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and has been sentenced as follows :- Sr. No. Penal Provision Sentence imposed 1 Section 363, IPC Simple imprisonment for 7 years and fine Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months.

2. Section 366 IPC Simple imprisonment for 7 years and fine Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months.

3. Section 376 IPC Simple imprisonment for 7 years and fine Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months. The different terms of imprisonment awarded to the accused have been made to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 15.4.1996 Devi Ram (PW-2) lodged F.I.R. Ext. PW-2/A at Police Station, Bhawanagar under Section 363 I.P.C. on the allegations that his daughter, the prosecutrix (PW-7) had been residing with his sister at Bhawanagar to learn knitting work. The prosecutrix used to go to meet PW-1 once in two or three months and after residing there for about a week would return to Bhawanagar. However, during the period of two months preceding the lodging of the F.I.R. she did not go to meet her father, therefore, he came to Bhawanagar. His sister Swal Devi, however, informed him that the prosecutrix had gone to his house on 15.4.1996. It led PW-2 to suspect that somebody had kidnapped the prosecutrix and he started to enquire about her from his relations and learnt on 22.5.1996 that she had been kidnapped by the accused. During investigation the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the accused vide Memo Ext. PW-2/B and her person was handed over to her father PW-1 vide Memo Ext. PW-2/C. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Suman Thakur (PW-10) on 27.5.1996 who opined that there was nothing to suggest that fresh sexual intercourse had taken place. She referred the prosecutrix for determination of her skeleton age and also took in possession her wearing apparels i.e. one Salwar and one Kameez for being sent to the chemical examiner for analysis. As per the opinion of the Radiologist, the age of the prosecutrix was 12/4 to 15 years. PW-10 accordingly issued M.L.C. Ext. PW-10/B. On arrest, the accused was also got medically examined and as per opinion given by Dr. Lalit Mahajan (PW-7) vide M.L.C. Ext. PW-7/A the accused was found capable of performing sexual act. PW-7 also took in possession swab, pubic hair, underwear and blood of the accused for the purpose of analysis. Age certificate Ext, PW-2/D certifying the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 6.6.1982 was also taken in possession vide Memo Ext. PW-2/E and the age certificate of the accused Ext. PW-3/A was taken in possession vide Memo Ext. PW-3/B. On analysis of the articles preserved and sent for analysis Deputy Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga vide his report Ext. PW-12/A opined that blood was found on the underwear of the accused but was insufficient for further tests. Nothing incriminating was detected on other articles. On completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused and he came to be tried on a charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C.

3. To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case and examined two witnesses in his defence. 4 On consideration of the material on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved accused.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate Gen