Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- The appellant was convicted in FIR No. 174 dated 05.07.2012 registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 IPC at Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad. He was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 2 months. He was also sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month imprisonment and to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. A complaint was made by Arun. His 14 years old daughter did not return from school. His daughter was student of 8th class and had left for school at about 7 a.m. She did not return. The family searched for her but could not find her. The family had not reported the matter to the police for the fear of humiliation. The complainant later came to know that she might have been enticed by Bhajan, resident of West Bengal who lived as a tenant in their house. Bhajan was also missing since then. His mobile was switched off. Acting on this complaint, the police registered the FIR under Sections 363, 366A IPC. Investigations were started. The girl was recovered from the custody of the appellant after about 6 months. She was pregnant. The statement of the girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Section 376 IPC was added later on. After completion of the investigation challan was presented.

3. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses.

4. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded false implication. No evidence was led in defence. The trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to the imprisonment mentioned herein before.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that it was a case of consent. Attention was drawn to the photograph placed on record and it was submitted that presence of the prosecutrix and the accused in photo showed that they were happy. It was submitted that the prosecutrix had willingly and voluntarily gone with the accused and even as per version of the prosecution she was missing for almost six months and during this period she did not raise any hue and cry and had travelled to different parts of the county by bus and public transport and it is a clear case where the prosecutrix had consented to go with him.

6. My attention was drawn to the MLR to point out that there was no injury noted upon her. It was pointed out that the ossification report reflects that she was between 15-17 years and the trial Court accepted the date of birth as given in the certificate and the Court had relied upon school certificate where the date of birth is recorded as 09.06.1998. It was urged that prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had stated that she had gone alongwith accused to West Bengal and she had got married to him and she had remained with Raju’s family and then they had left for Bangalore where she remained for about 6 months and they had returned the same day from Bangalore but later at the trial she had supported the prosecution version. It was contended that it was a case of consent and the ossification report should have been accepted.

7. On the other hand the submission was that the consent of minor is irrelevant and can not be treated as a valid consent as a minor girl can be easily lured to give a consent and it can not be treated as an informed consent given after understanding the pros and cons as well as consequences of the intended action. It was contended that according to school certificate the girl was minor and just because the girl has given birth to a child would not be a mitigating circumstance. Reliance was placed upon Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar vs. Stateof Gujarat, [2015(1) Law Herald (SC) 781 : 2