The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the prosecutrix's age at the time of the alleged kidnapping, which influenced the court's decision.

Surjit Singh, J.(Oral)-State has appealed against the judgment, dated 23.6.1997, of learned Sessions Court, Nahan, whereby respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, have been acquitted.

2. Prosecution’s case, as per evidence, is like this. Prosecutrix, examined as PW-11, used to live in village Kiyarda, with her parents. In her neighbourhood, there lived a lady by the name of Yashoda. Respondent Balbir Singh, who was employed as a conductor on a truck, used to visit the house of Yashoda as he was related to that lady. He came in contact with the prosecutrix, because her parents’ house was in the neighbourhood of Yashoda. He started alluring the prosecutrix that in case she married him; he would provide her with many things. Respondent Harnam Singh, again a relative of Yashoda, also used to visit Yashoda and sometime in the company of respondent Balbir Singh. He too used to prompt the prosecutrix to marry Balbir Singh.

3. On 20.1.1994, when the prosecutrix was all alone at her parents’ place, as her mother had gone to work in some factory and her father had also gone to his work place, respondent Harnam Singh and Yashoda went to prosecutrix and told her that respondent Balbir Singh was waiting her by the roadside. Prosecutrix accompanied by respondent Harnam Singh and said Yashoda went towards roadside. She went with the intention of telling respondent Balbir Singh that she was not interested in marrying him and he should not be approaching her anymore for the purpose. When she reached the roadside, a taxi was already parked there. Respondent Balbir Singh and driver of the taxi were present in the taxi. Respondent Harnam Singh made the prosecutrix to enter the taxi. After she boarded the taxi, it was driven to village Amboya, where respondent Balbir Singh took her to his house. She was kept there upto 24th January, 1994.

4. When prosecutrix went missing, her parents searched for her at their relatives’ places. On getting no clue, mother of the prosecutrix ultimately lodged report with the police on 24th January, 1994, vide statement Ext. PE. On the basis of that statement, case was formally registered. On the very day of the making of aforesaid statement by the mother of the prosecutrix to the police, prosecutrix was recovered from village Amboya, where she was spotted in the company of respondent Balbir Singh by the roadside. Respondent Balbir Singh was arrested.

5. Prosecutrix was got medically examined. PW-1 Dr. Sunita Mangla conducted the medical examination and found that hymen of the prosecutrix was missing and vagina admitted two fingers. Both the respondents were challaned. Case was committed to Sessions Court by the concerned Magistrate. Respondents, on being charged, pleaded not guilty. They were, therefore, put on trial.

6. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her mother PW-3 Shakuntla Devi and Dr. Sunita Mangla PW-1, to bring the charge home to the respondents.

7. Respondent Harnam Singh denied his involvement. Other respondent, namely Balbir Singh, pleaded that prosecutrix came to his house on her own and started living with him. He also took the plea that on 20th January, 1994 itself, father of the prosecutrix came to his place to get the prosecutrix back, but she refused to go with him and then father of the prosecutrix, in presence of DW-1 Roshan Lal and DW-3 Rangi Lal, the two respectables of the village, married the prosecutrix to him.

8. Trial Court concluded that the prosecutrix appeared to have left her father’s place on her own to join the society of respondent Balbir Singh and that this was not a case of kidnapping. Consequently, respondents were acquitted.

9. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State as also learned counsel, representing the respondents, and gone through the record.

10. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the only question involved in this case is t