Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—The appellants Ram Singh and five others have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.4.1982 rendered by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 77/1980, State of U.P. v. Ram Singh and others, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced each of the appellants under Section 363, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of three months.

2. The prosecution story leading to this appeal is that the complainant PW-3 Sukh Lal, a resident of village Kiwar, police station Seohara, district Bijnor, had married his daughter Sushma to appellant No. 1 Ram Singh, who is a resident of village Kuchawli, police station Chhajlait, district Moradabad about 1-1/2 years before the occurrence. The complainant’s daughter Sushma, on account of certain differences with her husband appellant No. 1 Ram Singh, remarried with one Shyam Lal of village Chandpur before 4-5 days of the occurrence, which caused annoyance to the appellants. It is also alleged that in the night of 2nd and 3rd February, 1979, the complainant PW-3 Sukh Lal was sleeping in his kotha (room) with his wife PW-4 Tulia and daughter PW-8 Saroj and other children. At about mid night all the appellants entered inside his kotha and told him that since he had married his daughter Sushma to other person, they would take away PW-8 Saroj with them in lieu of Sushma. The appellants accordingly took away PW-8 Saroj from the lawful guardianship of her parents PW-3 Sukhlal and PW-4 Tulia. At that time, PW-8 Saroj was aged about 15-16 years and was minor. It is also alleged that the complainant PW-3 Sukh Lal raised alarm, consequently witnesses PW-6 Sukhey, PW-7 Lalloo and other persons came to the place of occurrence by flashing torches and witnessed the occurrence but the appellants taking advantage of darkness managed their escape alongwith the victim PW-8 Saroj and could not be apprehended. It is also alleged that the complainant PW-3 Sukh Lal, his wife PW-4 Tulia and his other family members identified the appellants in the light of kerosene lamp which was kept inside of the kotha in which they were sleeping at the time of the incident. It is also alleged that the appellants were again identified while moving outside the kotha of the complainant, in the torch light flashed by the aforesaid witnesses.

3. PW-3 Sukhlal lodged the FIR Ext. Ka-4 at the concerned police station on the next day at about 12.30 p.m. The police registered the case under Sections 363/366, IPC against the appellants and proceeded to make the investigation.

4. On 4.2.1979, the Investigating Officer, on receiving an information from a mukhbir that the appellants were present alongwith the victim PW-8 Saroj at the railway station Mewa Nawada, proceeded to the railway station and recovered the prosecutrix PW-8 Saroj from the possession of the appellants. The appellant No. 5 Kallu was arrested at the railway station Mewa Nawada but other appellants any how managed their escape and could not be apprehended.

5. The prosecutrix Saroj (PW-8) was medically examined by a lady doctor on 4.2.1979 at about 5.15 p.m. in the District Women’s Hospital, Bijnor who prepared the medico legal report dated 4.2.1979 and referred the victim for X-ray of her elbow, knee and wrist joints. These joints were subjected to x-ray on 5.2.1979 and all the epiphysis around the joints were found not fused. The lady doctor who had medically examined the prosecutrix Saroj, prepared a supplementary report dated 19.3.1979 and opined that the prosecutrix Saroj was aged about 14 years but could not give any definite opinion in regard to recent sexual intercourse. The lady doctor, however, opined that the prosecutrix used to have sexual intercourse.

6. The Investigating Officer, after making usual investigation, filed charge-sheet Ex. Ka-7 against the