Short Note : Held : In sexual offences, though not as a matter of strict law, certainly as a matter of caution and practice, it is desirable that the evidence of the girl ravished or kidnapped or abducted for that purpose be corroborated in material particulars. By corroboration is meant some independent evidence which establishes or tends to establish not only the commission of the alleged offence but also and more importantly that the accused has committed that offence. 1. As to the guilt of the appellant Sonbati, it is the evidence of Malti (P.W.5) herself that she abandoning her house had gone to Raipur where she had come across the appellants Sonbati. It would still be a case of kidnapping or abduction if the appellant Sonbati had either forced or persuaded Malti (P.W.5) to accompany her. There is however, no evidence regarding any force having been employed by the appellant Mst. Sonbati. As regards kidnapping, the evidence of Dr. Sadashvi (P.W.9) himself is that Malti (P.W.5) could have been aged 18 years. For an offence punishable under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, one of the ingredients is that the girl alleged to have been induced to go from place to place is under age of 18 years. There is no evidence that she was under 18 years of age. Then some allowance has to be given to the opinion of an expert witness regarding age which after all is only approximate. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in concluding that Malti (P.W.5) not being less than 18 years of age had herself accompanied the appellant Sonbati to her village Gulloo for the obvious purpose of earning own livelihood. 2. As to the guilt of the appellant Sk. Sabir for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, though there is oral evidence of Malti (P.W.5) about the appellant Sk. Sabir's having had forcible sexual intercourse with her, there is no corroborative evidence. Dr. (Ku.) Dhun Dhongaji (P.W.1) had not found any symptoms of force having been employed on Malti (P.W.5). It is clear in Malti (P.W.5's) evidence itself that there were other inmates in the house also, including the wife of the appellant Sk. Sabir. It is, therefore, unlikely that the appellant Sk. Sabir could have had an opportunity to engage in sexual intercourse with Malti (P.W.5). The evidence of Mst. It is clear in Malti (P.W.5's) evidence itself that there were other inmates in the house also, including the wife of the appellant Sk. Sabir. It is, therefore, unlikely that the appellant Sk. Sabir could have had an opportunity to engage in sexual intercourse with Malti (P.W.5). The evidence of Mst. Rambai (D.W.4) establishes that the appellants Sk. Sabir had all those days slept with her. She is the wife of the appellant Sk. Sabir. The absence of Smegma on the glance (penis) of the appellant Sk. Sabir, in itself not a very reliable circumstance, thus remains explained by his wife Mst. Rambai (D.W.4). To put it differently, the absence of smegma on the glance (penis) of the appellant Sk. Sabir could as well have been as a result of his engaging in a sexual act with his own wife without having to do anything with Malti (P.W.5). In any event, there is considerable doubt that the appellant had sexual intercourse with Malti (P.W.5) without her consent which she was competent to give being not less than 18 years of age. 3. As a result of foregoing conclusions, the appellant Mst. Sonbati has been wrongly found guilty of offence punishable under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and wrongly sentenced thereunder. Similarly, the appellant Sk. Sabir has been wrongly found guilty of offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and wrongly sentenced thereunder. Their appeals are allowed. Their convictions and sentences are set aside. They are acquitted of the offences charged and they be set at liberty forthwith.