Harbans Lal, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 18.2.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 376 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 366-A IPC with a further direction that these sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that on 14.6.1993 at about 2:00 p.m., Amrik Singh (referring to the accused) a neighbour of the complainant Gurmukh Singh PW took away the prosecutrix (To prevent her social victimisation, her name has been kept secret in view of the observations rendered by the Apex Court in re: Premia @ Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, [2008(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 3473] : 2008(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 539 Supreme Court) aged about 16/17 years grand daughter of Gurmukh Singh by inducing her by deceitful means. On search, Amrik Singh could not be tracked down, nor she could be found. On the basis of Gurmukh Singh’s statement, formal FIR Ex.PW5/B was registered. On 13.9.1993, they both were found present at the Railway Station, Sangrur. On catching sight of the police party, an endeavour in vain was made to run away. He dragged her by holding her arm. On being given a chase, she was saved from his clutches. He was arrested. After observing usual formalities and on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri. Vide his order dated 24.12.1993, he committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur for trial of the accused. On commitment, the case was entrusted to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.

3. The accused was charged under Section 376/366-A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bolster up its version, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix PW1, Dr. Rupinder Kaur Sandhu PW2, Dr. K.K. Goyal PW3, Dr. S.K. Juneja PW4, Gurmukh Singh complainant PW5, Constable Jaswinder Singh PW6, GuIzar Singh Head Constable PW7, SI Nahar Singh PW8, Madan Lal Statistical Clerk of the Office of Civil Surgeon, Sangrur PW9, S.I. Darshan Singh PW10, Mr. N.K. Goel, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri, PW11 and closed its evidence.

4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He has come up with a plea that he was earlier a student of Engineering College, Bangalore and has been falsely involved in a case by Gurmukh Singh and his other relations in connivance with the Police due to inimical relations. He examined DW 1 V.B Bhatnagar. Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noted supra. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/sentence, he has preferred this appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

6. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate representing the appellant urged with a good deal of force that as is borne out from the prosecution evidence, the prosecutrix was about 16 years of age and she did not raise alarm when she travelled in number of buses from one place to the other nor shared with the passengers that she was being taken away forcibly under threat. This spells out that she was a consenting party. He further puts that a careful delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution would reveal that somewhere her age has been given as 16 years and so