The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of school leaving certificates and medical evidence in determining the age of the victim and proving the occurrence of rape.

Baldev Singh, J.

1. Keshar Singh son of Sube Singh, aged about 25 years, a rickshaw puller, resident of Mohalla Kartarpura, Rohtak has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.7.1988 and the impugned sentence order dated 16.7.1988 passed by Sh. J.D. Chandna, the then Additional Sessions Judge-III, Rohtak, vide which he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to under to further R.I. for three months under Section 363 IPC, to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months under Section 366 UPC, and to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months under Section 376 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the prosecution case are that PW Inder Singh, a shikligar, lived with his family members near Bangar Cinema, Rohtak. On 22.12.1987 at about 10 a.m., his daughter Sheila Kaur went to the fields to ease herself. She did not return. On enquiries made by Inder Singh, it was found that appellant Keshar Singh had kidnapped her. It was also noticed by him that 4/5 days earlier Sheila Kaur had complained to her mother than Kehsar Singh- appellant was having an evil eye on her and he used to tell her that he would lift her bodily. Inder Singh searched for Sheila Kaur and Keshar Singh appellant on 22.12.1987 and 23.12.1987. Ultimately, he lodged report with the police on 23.12.1987. PW Tota Ram ASI of Police Station City, Rohtak along with other police officials was present near Bus Adda, Rohtak, PW Inder Singh presented application Ex. PK before him. He made his endorsement Ex. PK/1 and got this case registered. Ex. PK/2 is the copy of the FIR.

3. On 24.12.1987, PW Tota Ram ASI along with other police officials and Inder Singh and Smt. Asarfi was present in the area of Rohtak, near Delhi Byepass at about 11 A.M. Sheila Kaur and Keshar Singh - appellant were spotted coming towards them. The appellant was arrested. Sheila Kaur was recovered from his possession. Memo of recovery Ex. PL was prepared. Site-plan Ex. PM was also prepared showing the place of arrest. The appellant and Sheila Kaur were got medically examined. The Medical Officer sealed the clothes of Sheila Kaur in a parcel. Similarly, the underwear of Keshar Singh-appellant was also sealed in a parcel. These were handed over to the police for sending the same to the Chemical Examiner.

4. On 25.12.1987 on the application Ex. PA moved by PW Tota Ram ASI, statement of Sheila Kaur was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.

5. Report of the Chemical Examiner was received. Human semen was found on the underwear of the appellant. Human semen was also found on the `salwar of Sheila Kaur and also on vaginal swabs. The police collected the school leaving certificate of Sheila Kaur, which mentioned her date of birth as 12.2.1973.

6. Statement of Sheila Kaur was also recorded by the police. She disclosed that on 22.12.1987, the appellant had taken her in a four-wheeler to Delhi. He had threatened her that he would kill her in case she raised alarm. So, she wandered with the appellant in the day time. At night time, he took her at Railway Station, Delhi. Next day, he took her in a quarter, which he had opened with a key. There he kept her for day and night and he had sexual intercourse with her. Next morning, he took her to Rohtak to arrange for the money and to enquire, if any report had been lodged with the police. They got down from a bus at Rohtak. He took her to one side of a brick-kiln, where there was growth of `kikkar trees. He had sexual intercourse with her there also. Thereafter, the police apprehended her and the appellant

7. On completion of the investigation, challan was put in against the appellant for the