( 1. ) BOTH these appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and findings dated 3-2-1993, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch District Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No. 291/91 thereby convicting appellant No. 1 Bapulal for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC and sentencing him RI for 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/-; RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-respectively and appellant No. 2 Shaligram for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) (g), IPC and sentencing him RI for 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/-; RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-respectively. In default of payment of fine, both the appellants were directed to suffer six months and one month RI for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC respectively. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

( 2. ) THE prosecution case in brief, before the Trial Court, was that on 20th May, 1991, a report was lodged by Mangilal (P. W. 6) father of the prosecutrix Gangabai about her missing, in the police station, which was recorded in Rajnamcha Sanha. As per this report, when they reached at their house after working from the field, prosecutrix, Gangabai (P. W. 10) was not available in the house. On this report, the police started search and found that the prosecutrix was abducted on a motorcycle by the appellants on 25th of May, 1991. She was abducted with a view to gel married with appellant No. 1 Bapulal oh false pretext. After some days, the prosecutrix was recovered and according to her statement, appellant No. 1 Bapulal, who was the brother-in-law of the sister of the prosecutrix, had ravished her against her consent and Will. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was minor and for ascertaining the age, she was medically examined by Radiologist Dr. Govind Lal (P. W. 9 ). His report is Exh. P-9. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

( 3. ) THE Trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the aforesaid offences. The appellants abjured their guilt and the defence of the appellant No. 1 Bapulal was that the prosecutrix was the consenting party and went with him at her own accord whereas the defence of the appellant No. 2 Shaligram was one of the denial.

( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution is not able to establish by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the incident. Her conduct is clearly showing that she was the consenting party. According to the affidavit Ex. D-3, which was duly sworn by the prosecutrix before Shyam Samdhani (D. W. 1) and notary Harishchandra (D. W. 2) to the effect that she was 19 years of age and by such affidavit, she had got married with appellant No. 1 Bapulal. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has contended that the prosecutrix was minor and below 16 years of age as held by the Trial Court, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court. The prosecutrix was taken away from the lawful guardian on false pretext. The Counsel supported the judgment and findings of the Trial Court.

( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the entire evidence available on record along with both the Advocates, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the alleged date of the incident and she being a consenting party, no offence is made out against the appellants. For the purposes of consideration of the question of age of the prosecutrix, the Trial Court in Paragraph 15 of its judgment has considered the ossification test report as well as statements of Sarjubai (P. W. 11) mother of the prosecutrix and Mangilal (P. W. 6) father of the prosecutrix respectively. Mangilal (P. W. 6) in his