In criminal cases, the benefit of doubt is always given to the accused.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated March 31, 1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code, and the order of sentence dated February 1, 1996. Under Section 366, I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. Under Section 376, I.P.C., the applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. Prosecutrix Sita Devi, who was stated to be 16/17 years of age in the complaint dated June 5, 1994 lodged by her father Jit Bahadur (P.W.4), was found missing since May 30, 1994 as she had not returned to her house from the nearby jungle where she had gone to ease herself at 6 P.M. According to the complainant, he and his wife Smt. Savitra Devi continued searching her but she could not be traced anywhere. The complainant suspected Jaipal Singh accused, who used to work as a labourer in a colony and used to visit their house, having abducted the prosecutrix. On this statement made by Jit Bahadur (P.W.4) first information report at Police Station Chandimandir was registered at 9.15 P.M. on June 5, 1994 under Sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code. The Police started searching her but to no avail. Ultimately, on August 22, 1994, Sita Devi prosecutrix was found sitting on a bench along with Jaipal Singh accused at Bus Stand Chandigarh by A.S.I. Dayal Ram on the identification made by her father Jit Bahadur. Both of them were apprehended by the A.S.I. Memo. (Ex.PH) with respect thereto was prepared. The prosecutrix was allowed to go with her father. The prosecutrix as well as the accused were got medically examined on August 23, 1994.

3. Dr. Supriya Gupta, Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Kalka (P.W.1), before whom the prosecutrix got her age noted as 17-1/2 years, medico-legally examined her and found that the prosecutrix was mentally sound. No mark of any injury was found on her person. Breasts were well developed. Nipple and areola were found normal. Normal publiac hair were found present. No evidence of injury was found on external genital. There was no evidence of any injury on hymen. White discharge was seen in the vagina. Two fingers passed easily therein. No bruise or laceration was found on the vagina. In the opinion of the doctor, Sita Devi prosecutrix was pregnant by 15 weeks.

4. On the same date, Dr. S.K. Gupta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kalka (P.W.5), who medico-legally examined Jaipal accused, found him fit to do the sexual intercourse.

5. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code, and was tried for the same by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution besides the medical evidence of Dr. Supriya Gupta (P.W.1) and Dr. S.K. Gupta (P.W.5), examined Manohar Lal Draftsman (P.W.2), Inspector Singh (P.W.3), Jeet Bahadur (P.W.4), Sita Devi (P.W.6) and A.S.I. Dayal Ram (P.W.7). Inspector Singh (P.W.3) is the Headmaster of Government Primary School, Nasirpur, District Ambala. He produced the certificate (Ex. PC) pertaining to Sita Devi prosecutrix. Jeet Bahadur (P.W.4) is the father of the prosecutrix and A.S.I. Dayal Ram (P.W.7) is the Investigating Officer of the case.

7. When examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused pleaded innocence. The statement of the prosecutrix (Ex.DA) under Section 161, Cr.P.C., made by her before the Police on the day of her recovery, was produced in support of the defence.

8. Despite opportunity, counsel for the appellant did not appear. Mr. Vijay