Hon'ble Rang Nath Pandey,J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 30, Barabanki in sessions trial no. 235 of 2000 arising out of case crime no. 239 of 1999 under Sections 363,366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, ''I.P.C.') relating to Police Station Jaitpur, District Barabanki, whereby, all the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 366 I.P.C. with default stipulation. Appellant no. 1-Balakram was also convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376 of I.PC. with default stipulation. The substantive sentences awarded to appellant no. 1-Balakram were directed to run concurrently.

2. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 15.12.1999 at 12:30, a report to this effect was lodged by complainant Ganga Ram Yadav that Balak Ram with the help of Shesh Ram and Malti, had eloped with his daughter. In order to deceive us, Balak Ram went with his suitcase in the day but again came back in the village after 9.P.M. On the basis of this, case crime no. 239 of 1999 under Section 363, 366 of Indian Penal code was registered. Thereafter, during investigation the daughter of the complainant Bhanu Kumari was recovered. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Medical Examination was conducted and collecting all the evidences, Charge-sheet had been filed in the Court concerned.

3. In order to prove the case, PW-1 Ganga Ram, PW-2 Dr. P.C. Dubey, PW-3 Dr. Ranjana Khare, PW-4 Bhanu Kumari (victim), PW-5 Head Constable Ram Vilash and PW-6 Ram Badan Singh (Investigation Officer) were examined by the prosecution.

4. After the prosecution evidences, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incident and stated the fact of delivery of false testimony due to enmity by the witnesses and accepted to give the defence. In their defence, accused persons have got examined D.W-1 Ramprakash and produced the copy of the Family Register. This family register has been got proved by D.W. 1 Ram prakash, which is marked as Exhibit Kha-2.

5. Learned trial Court after hearing the prosecution as well as defence found appellants guilty and sentenced them as above.

6. Aggrieved by the order, the accused-appellants approached this Court by way of filing instant criminal appeal.

7. According to counsel for the appellants, the theory of rape was not at all supported by the medical evidence. PW-3 Dr. Ranjana Khare, who had seen and examined the victim girl, has stated in her statements that on 17.1.2000 she had conducted the medical examination of Jullu alias Bhanu Kumari daughter of Gangaram. On the general check-up, prosecutrix was found average built, breasts were developed. There was no injury near the reproductive organ. She further stated that on the basis of the report supplied by the Radiologist, she concluded that the age of prosecutrix was 18 years and no definite opinion can be given regarding rape.

8. It was one of the main contentions of counsel for the appellants that the testimony of the prosecutrix becomes highly doubtful and suspicious because of multiple contradictions and omissions on the vital aspects of prosecution case, as she has stated in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she had eloped with Balak Ram out of her own will. She had neither been abducted by anyone nor her rape was committed by Balak Ram. It was also argued that prosecutrix Bhanu Kumari herself had admitted in both, the examination-in-chief and cross-examination, that the wrong act had been committed with her. It is also stated that wrong act does not mean rape, nor committing wrong act falls under the legal definition provided in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. There were major contradic