JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Munshi Ram has been convicted of the offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo two months' simple imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Section 366, Indian Penal code, and has been sentenced to two years' regorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 300/- in default, to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently, and the other co-accused Narayan Singh. Mst. Maina and Hemraj were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by his judgment dated 27.5.1977. The appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code. 2. I may state the prosecution case in brief. Smt. Laxmi (P.W. 2), who is the mother of Mst. Rewanti, lodged a report at Police Station, Kotwali, Ganganagar, on 17.2.1979 at about 12.30 p.m , that her daughter Rewanti, aged about 14-15 years, used to go for earning wages in Ganganagar City. She left the house in the morning on 11.2.1975, but thereafter she did not return to the house. On inquiry it was learnt that her daughter has been enticed away by the accused Munshi Ram and along with them two more male accused persons and one woman have also gone On 11.2.1976 in the night a verbal request was made to the S.H.O. Kotwali to find out the where shouts of her daughter. On this report a case was registered. On 10 5.1976 the accused Hemraj was arrested at Ganganagar. On his information Mst. Rewanti was recoverded from the custody of the other accused persons, namely, Munshi Ram, Narayan Singh and Mst. Maina, on 11.5.1976 in Delhi. After investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused persons and the accused persons were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions, from where the casc was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The accused Munshi Ram was charged for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. and the other accused persons, namely Hemraj, Narayan Singh and Mst. Maina, were charged for the offences under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined Mst. Rewanti (P.W 1), Mst. and the other accused persons, namely Hemraj, Narayan Singh and Mst. Maina, were charged for the offences under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined Mst. Rewanti (P.W 1), Mst. Laxmi (P.W 2), Jhumardeen (P.W. 3), Sultan P.W. 4), Veervar Dan (P.W. 5) A.S.I. Kotwali, Asal Ali Khan iP.W.6). S H.O., Kotwali, Ganganagar, Dr. S.S. Bhargawa, Radiologist (P.W.7),Mst.Sharbati (P.W. 8), Prakash Chandra, A.S.I., Kotwali (P.W. 9), Dhanna Ram (P.W. 10), Babulal (P.W. 11), & Dr. S.K. Sharma (P W. 12). The statements of the accused persons were recorded, in which they denied the prosecution case. Munshi Ram stated that Mst. Rewanti used to cut jokes with others. When he want to Delhi, be saw her at the Delhi Railway Station. Thereafter she started living with them. He did rot abduct Rewanti. 4. After hearing the arguments, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced Munshi Ram, as above and acquitted the other accused persons. On appeal by Munshi Ram, show cause notice was issued by this Court to the two accused persons Narayan Singh and Mst. Maina as to why they should not be proceeded against for the offences under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. 5. I have heard Shri B.B. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Niranjan Gaur, learned counsel for Narayan Singh and Smt. Maina, and the learned Public Prosecutor, for the State, and I have perused the record of the case. 6. The main question in this appeal is with regard to the age of the prosecutrix Mst. Rewanti (P.W. 1). The learned trial judge on the basis of the evidence on record, has found that at the time of occurrence the age of Mst. Rewanti was above 16 years and under 18 years. This finding has been recorded primarily on the basis of the evidence of Dr. S.S. Bhargawa, Rediologist (P.W. 7), supported by Dr. S.K. Sharma (P.W. 12). The whole question, therefore, is whether at the time of occurrence, the prosecution has been able to prove or not that the prosecutrix Mst. Rewanti was under 18 years of age. With regard to the age of the prosecutrix, there are the statements of Mst Rewanti, Mst. Laxmi and Mst. Sharbati and opinion evidence consists Dr. S.S. Bhargawa and Dr. The whole question, therefore, is whether at the time of occurrence, the prosecution has been able to prove or not that the prosecutrix Mst. Rewanti was under 18 years of age. With regard to the age of the prosecutrix, there are the statements of Mst Rewanti, Mst. Laxmi and Mst. Sharbati and opinion evidence consists Dr. S.S. Bhargawa and Dr. S.K. Sharma Mst Rewanti has given out her age 15 years. She has not been able to give her date or year of birth. She has stated that she has one elder brother, but she does not know as to how much elder he is and what is his age, nor she can say about her younger brother. She has also stated that she does not know whether she is 20 years of age now. The same is the state of the statement of her mother Mst. Laxmi. She is also an illiterate lady. Her statement is very indefinite. She stated that she has got three children. The eldest is the son, who must be aged about 15-16 years. She deposed that the age of Rewanti is about 15-16 years. The age of his eldest son must be 4-5 years more to the age of Mst. Rewanti. She could not give the year of birth of Mst. Rewanti. She further stated that the age of her eldest son must be 22-23. If this age is taken to he the age of he eldest son, then Mst. Rea anti comes to be 18-19 years of age, as she has stated that her eldest son is elder to Mst. Rewanti by 4-5 years. Sharbati (P W.8) has stated that Rewanti is of her age and she has given her age as 20 years. Thus, from the oral evidence of these witnesses, in my opinion, it is not proved that at the time of occurrence Rewanti was definitely under 18 years. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, there are the statements of Dr. S.S. Bhargawa, Rediologist (P.W. 7) and Dr. S.K. Sharma (P.W. 12). Dr. Bhargawa has expressed that on reading Ex. P/10 he is of the opinion that the age of Mst. Rewanti appears to be about 17 years and she is not less than 16 years and not above 18 years. S.S. Bhargawa, Rediologist (P.W. 7) and Dr. S.K. Sharma (P.W. 12). Dr. Bhargawa has expressed that on reading Ex. P/10 he is of the opinion that the age of Mst. Rewanti appears to be about 17 years and she is not less than 16 years and not above 18 years. In cross-examination he admitted that fusion varies from place to place and person to person due to dietic and claimatic conditions. He also deposed that according to Modi ossification is not a surest test and according to Modi there can be difference of 6 months to one year in either lower or upper side. So far as the present case is concerned, the witness stated that in his report the margin of one year in either side has already been considered. Dr. S.K. Sharma also stated that according to the report of the radiologist the age of Mst Rewanti was abut 17 years and he further stated that on the strength of his own examination and observation of the girl and her different organs relevant for making opinion about her age and also on reading the report of the pathologist and of the radiologist, he was of the opinion that Mst. Rawanli was about 17 years of her life. In connection with this opinion evidence suffice it to say that no definite finding can be arrived at on the basis of that evidence The margin may be little more than one year. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond all responsible doubt that the age of Mst. Rewanti on 11.2.1976, was in any case under 18 years. Such a finding, in my opinion, can hardly be arrived at solely on the basis of the opinion evidence of Dr. S.S. Bhargawa and Dr. S.K. Sharma. It is possible that Mst Rewanti may be little more than 18 years. If the matter is examined in the light of the statement of Mst. Laxmi, then it can be said that Mst Rewanti is not under 18 years of age. The case appears to be a marginal case and a definite opinion can not expressed that on the date of occurrence Mst. Rewanti was under 18 years of age. So, with regard to the question of age, in any case the benefit of doubt must go to the accused person. The case appears to be a marginal case and a definite opinion can not expressed that on the date of occurrence Mst. Rewanti was under 18 years of age. So, with regard to the question of age, in any case the benefit of doubt must go to the accused person. In this view of the matter, offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, is not at all made out against the accused persons. So far as the offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code is concerned, it can hardly be said, on the basis of he evidence on record, that Mst. Rewanti was compelled by force or was induced by any deceitful means to go along with accused Munshi Ram. Mst Rewanti is a grow up girl. She has visited several places in the company of the accused. Her conduct completely negatives the use of any force or use of any deceitful means.To me it appears that she was a consenting party. She went with the accused person with her own free will. She visited Abohar. from Abohar she had gone to Bareli and from Bareli he came to Moti Nagar, Delhi. At Delhi she was going out for earning her wages. Thus, from the conduct of Mst.Rewanti it appears that she was neither kidnapped or abducted by the accused persons. Thus offences under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt against all the accused persons. 7. In the result, the appeal of Munshi Ram is allowed, his convictions and sentences are set aside and he is acquitted of the offences under which he was convicted. The notices issued to the accused Narayan Singh and Smt. Maina, are discharged. The accused Munshi Ram need not surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are discharged. *******