The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the age and consent of the prosecutrix in cases involving offences against her, and the reliance on credible evidence to determine the guilt of the accused.

Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)-The appellant was acquitted by the learned trial Court, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as under:-

Sl.No. Offender Under Section Sentenced

1. Section 363 Simple imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he

was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Section 366 IPC Simple Imprisonment for seven years and fine of

Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to

further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and he was also given the benefit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The appellant felt aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, as such, filed the instant appeal, on the grounds that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and further that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age. She had left the house of her parents voluntarily, therefore, circumstances on record did not warrant the conviction of the appellant.

4. In short, the prosecution case, as emerges from the evidence can be stated thus. In the year, 2000, prosecutrix was a student of 9th standard, studying in Government High School Dofda. The appellant is also the resident of same village. He was in love with the prosecutrix and intended to marry her. On 17th May, 2000, he met her in village Uchi, while she was on her way to school. He expressed his intention to get married to her, in case she refused, he would kill her. She did not respond and went to school, but returned around 12 O’clock. Appellant again met her on the way. He is alleged to have snatched her dupatta and pretended that he would hang himself in case she did not marry him. The prosecutrix kicked of his proposal. On this, the appellant is stated to have snatched her bag, forced her to sit down and committed rape. Thereafter she left her house but she was again invited by the appellant to the field. Then, he took her to the Nullah and committed rape and told her that he would marry her. When the prosecutrix was not found in the house on 19.5.2000, the father of the prosecutrix PW2 Chint Ram lodged the report with the police alleging that the appellant had enticed his daughter with an intention to marry her. On checking her school bag, he traced two love letters Exts.PW1/A and B written by the appellant to her.

5. The appellant had kept the prosecutrix in Rama Guest House, Rampur, where she was again raped and then brought her to Basarna orchard and kept her there for two days, from where, she was recovered by the police on 25th May, 2000. At that time, her father was also accompanying the police.

6. Prosecutrix was medically examined by PW11 Dr. Jatinder Kochhar. On her examination, he did not find any injury on the body of the prosecutrix. Hymen was found ruptured at 4 O’clock and 7 O’clock with carunculae hymenale. No edema or bleeding could be seen from edges of hymen. There was no evidence of fresh and forcible sexual intercourse. The wearing apparels were sent for the forensic examination.

7. The police did not ask for her skeletal age, therefore, x-rays were not done. The doctor aforesaid issued Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW11/A. The report of the forensic examination Ex.PW10/A, revealed that the trouser of the prosecutrix was containing blood stains.

8. Police collected the copies of entries of the register form ‘Rama Guest House’ and also the certificate with respect to the age of the prosecutrix. After completing the challan, it was presented in the court for the trial of the appellant.

9. The appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

10. The prosecution examined its witnesses to prove the charges against him. He