V. GOPALASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred against the judgment dated 28-1-1984 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore, in Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1983 confirming the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gunupur in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1982 convicting the petitioner under section 366, I. P. C. and sentencing him there under to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: The informant Komdeb Padhi (P. W. 5 is the father of the victim girl Sabita Padhi (P. W. 10) and they were residents of village Ukumba (within Gunupur P. 8. in Korapat district ). Sabita was a student at the High School at Ulumba and she had to appear for her High School Certificate Examination held during the period from 27-4-1981 up to 4-5-1981, at the Boys High School Centre at Gunupur. For the purpose of appearing at the H. S. C. examination she was staying temporarily in the room let out by P. W. 7 along with one Jagamaya Panigrahi, the daughter of the petitioner, as she was also appearing at the H S. C. examination. The petitioner is a resident of Pondaru village in Srikalulam district in Andhra Pradesh. Hrusikesh Panigrahi, brother-in, law of the petitioner, (a co-accused in the case but acquitted by the trial court) was staying in a room adjoining the room of Sabita in the house of P. W. 7. During the few days of Sabitas stay at Gunupur, the petitioner and his daughter Jagamaya brought pressure on Sabita, to give her consent for marrying Hrusikesh and she informed about it to her father (P. W. 5 ). The petitioner made the proposal to P. W. 5 about his brother-in-laws marriage with Sabita, but P. W. 5 turned down the proposal. On the night of 3-5-1981 Sabita and Jagamaya slept in the same room but in the morning of 4-5-1981 at about 8 A M. Sabita woke up and found herself in the bus stand at Purlakhemundi and the petitioner was by her side. From Purlakhemundi the petitioner had taken Subita to Tekkali (in Andhra Pradesh) where she was compelled to stay in a hut and in a lodge for about four days and throughout the petitioner was illtreating her and misbehaving with her. From Purlakhemundi the petitioner had taken Subita to Tekkali (in Andhra Pradesh) where she was compelled to stay in a hut and in a lodge for about four days and throughout the petitioner was illtreating her and misbehaving with her. On 16-5-1981 one Pagadalu, the kept mistress of the petitioner, brought the victim girl from Tekkali to Parlakhemundi by bus. At Parlakhemundi the victim girl was rescued by P. W. 6 and the latter took her on a motor cycle to her fatherts house at Ukumba. On 10-5-1981 P. W. 5 lodged the F. I. R. Ext. 7 at the Gunupur police station. The date of birth of the said Sabita is 1-7-1965. The police duly investigated into the case and submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner and his brother-in-law under section 366-A, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE plea of the petitioner is one of denial. Three D. Ws. were examined on behalf of the defence. There is nothing in the evidence of the D. Ws. , which is in any way helpful to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined in all 16 witnesses to prove its case. P. W. 1 was examined to a seizure of the telegram but he declines to depose about it. P. W. 2 produced the Admission Register of Ukumba High School and P. W. 3 is a witness to its seizure. P. W. 4 is the proprietor of the lodge at Tekkali where the victim girl was compelled to stay. P. W. 5 is the father of the victim girl and the informant in the case. P. W. 6 rescued the victim girl from cultches of the petitioners mistress and brought her to her fathers house P. W. 7 is the landlord of the house where the victim girl stayed at Gunupul. P. W. 8 is a witness to the seizure of the admit card of Sabita. P. W. 9 is the uncle of P. W. 5, who searched for the victim girl when she was found missing from Gunupur. P. W. 10 is the victim girl. P. Ws. 11 to 14 are the police officers. P. Ws. 15 and 16 are the doctors, who examined the victim girl. ( 5 ) P. W. 5 Kamdeb Padhi, the father of Sabita, deposed that the date of birth of Sabila Padhi is 1-7-1965. P. W. 10 is the victim girl. P. Ws. 11 to 14 are the police officers. P. Ws. 15 and 16 are the doctors, who examined the victim girl. ( 5 ) P. W. 5 Kamdeb Padhi, the father of Sabita, deposed that the date of birth of Sabila Padhi is 1-7-1965. P. W. 2, the teacher of the Uukmba High School, who made the entry regarding the date of birth of Sabita in the Admission Register proves the said entry Ext. 1. It shows that her date of 79 birth is 1-7-1965. P. W. 16 Dr. K. K. Misra was the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicines and to M. K. C G. Medical College, Berhampur and after examining the victim girl Sabita Padhi on 30-7-1981, opined that the age of the victim girl was about 15 years The date of occurrence was on 4-5-1981. According to Ext. 1. she was aged about 15 years 10 months on the date of occurrence. Relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 5 and 16 and the recitals in Ext. 1, both the courts below have come to a finding that Sabita Padhi was aged below 18 years by the date of occurrence. On a consideration of the above evidence relied on by both the courts below, agreeing with their finding, I hold that Sabita Padhi was a minor below the age of 18 years, by the date of occurrence. ( 6 ) THE evidence of the victim girl Sabita (P. W. 10) shows that on the night of 3-5-1981 accused Bhagaban Panigrahi served her food in the room and that on the morning of 4-5-1981 she woke up at the Parlakhemundhi bus stand and found the petitioner Bhagaban Panigrahi by her side It is in her evidence that as she cried the petitioner told her that she should marry accused Hrusikesh and assured her hat her father and accused Hrusikesh were coming behind. She deposed that she was feeling reeling of bead and was not feeling well at that time. Her evidence shows that though she wanted the petitioner to take her back to her house, be took her to Tekkali (in Andra Pradesh) and compelled her to stay there. She further deposed that at Tekkali the petitioner proposed to her to marry him and as she rejected the proposal, he assaulted her. Her evidence shows that though she wanted the petitioner to take her back to her house, be took her to Tekkali (in Andra Pradesh) and compelled her to stay there. She further deposed that at Tekkali the petitioner proposed to her to marry him and as she rejected the proposal, he assaulted her. From her evidence it is seen that on one occasion when the petitioner tried to forcibly remove her wearing clothes, she assaulted him, when he also assaulted her, as a result of which she lost consciousness. The evidence of the victim girl shows that one Pagadalu, the second wife of the petitioner, brought her by bus to Parlakhemundi and at the Parlakhemundi bus stand she was rescued by P. W. 6 who brought her on a motorcycle to her fathers house at Ukumba The evidence of the victim girl P. W 10 that without her consent, the petitioner had taken her away to Parlakhemundi and from there to Tekkali and that while at Tekkali he, ill treated her and misbehaved with her, has not been shaken in crossexamination. P. W 6 A. N. Rao is an independent witness. He deposed that while the victim girl was with Pagadalu, the petitionerts kept mistress, in a bus at Parlakhemundi bus stand, he rescued her and brought her to her fatherts house. The above reliable evidence of P. W. 6 corroborates the version of the victim girl that the petitioners second wife Pagadalu brought her to Parlakhemundi. ( 7 ) HRUSIKESH Panigrahi, who was a cc accused in the case and was acquitted by the trial court, is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. There is the reliable evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 10 to the effect that Hrusikesh was anxious to marry P. W. 10 Sabita and that the petitioner and his daughter brought pressure on the victim girl, to give her consent to marry Hrusikesh, and that even the petitioner made a proposal to P. W. 5, about the marriage of the victim girl with Hrusikesh, which P. W. 5 had turned down. There ill no reason to disbelieve P. W. 10 when she deposed- that at Parlakhemundi bus stand the petitioner told her that she should marry Hrusikesh. There ill no reason to disbelieve P. W. 10 when she deposed- that at Parlakhemundi bus stand the petitioner told her that she should marry Hrusikesh. In view of the above evidence and considering the background under which the petitioner had taken away the victim girl at Parlakhemundi without her consent, both the courts below were justified in coming to a finding, that the petitioner did so with the intention of compelling the victim girl to marry Hrusikesh against her will. ( 8 ) THE evidence of P. W. 5 shows that the village Ukumba where P. Ws. 5 and 10 were residing was at a distance of about 10 K. Ms. from Gunupur. Even during the days when the examinations were held, on 24-4-1981 and 25-4-1981, the uncle of P. W. 10 took her back to Ukumba on a bicycle after the examinations were over. During the period the examinations were held, P. W. 10 and the petitioners daughter were staying temporarily in the room let out by P. W. 7. P. W. 5 deposed that he used to come every day to see his daughter (P. W. 10) during the days the examinations were held. On the morning of 4-5-1981 when the victim girl was found missing from her room, P. W. 5 and others started searching for her. From the above reliable evidence it is seen that the prosecution has conclusively established that the victim girl, during her stay at Gunupur in the room let out by P. W. 7 for the purpose of appearing at the H. S. C. examination, was under the lawful guardianship of her father P. W. 5. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner cited many decisions, which might have been relevant, had P. W. 10 Sabita been taken to Parlakhemundi by the petitioner with her consent, and had she been willing to marry Hrusikesh. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner had taken Sabita to Parlakhemundi with her consent or that she was willing to marry Hrusikesh. The victim girl is proved to be a minor girl on the date of occurrence. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner had taken Sabita to Parlakhemundi with her consent or that she was willing to marry Hrusikesh. The victim girl is proved to be a minor girl on the date of occurrence. On a plain reading of section 361, I. P. C. it is seen that the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial: It is only the guardiants consent which takes the case out of the purview of section 361, I. P. C. As observed by the Supreme Court in Stare of Haryana v. Raja Ram1, the object of section 361, I. P. C. seems as much to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purposes, as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards. ( 10 ) ON a careful consideration of the material on record, agreeing with the concurrent findings of the courts below, I hold that the prosecution could successfully bring home to the petitioner the charge under section 366 I. P. C. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed on him by the courts below. ( 11 ) IN the result, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed .