K. L. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-9-1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhar in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 1988 whereby the appellant, aged 55 years, has been convicted under Sections 363 and 376 of the I. P. C. and has been sentenced respectively to R. I. for 5 years and 7 years, sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the prosecutrix Manibai (P. W. 2) who is a Banjaran had lived with the appellant for about 3 years prior to her recovery from him on 17-3-1988. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution on 31-3-1985 when the prosecutrix, then a minor girl, was working as labourer in Pithampur, the appellant who too was working there along with Savitribai (P. W. 6), took her with him on the pretext that Savitribai was his daughter and was going to see a film at Mhow and she might also accompany him. The prosecutrix's father had allowed her to go with the appellant to see film at Mhow. When she did not return it was reported to the police that she was missing. ( 4 ) DURING the period of three years between 1985 to 1988 the prosecutrix resided with the appellant and Savitribai at different villages including Bancdia, Jakukhedi and Hasalpur. They lived it Banedia for two years and then went to village Jakukhedi where savitribai gave birth to a son. There they resided for one year and later at Hasalpur. They used to work as labourers and used to give out that Manibai and Savitribai were appellants daughters. ( 5 ) IT was on 17-3-1988 that Unkar (p. W. 3) resident of utawad happened to spot the prosecutrix Manibai who is related to him as sister, with the appellant. This was at village Meghapur Mehgapur. Savitribai too was with the appellant. When the appellant was being taken to the Police Station Nalchha, Assistant Sub-Inspector S. S. Tomar (P. W. 10) attached to the Police Station, met them at Village Lunhers. ( 6 ) THE prosecutrix Manibai was recovered from the appellant the same day i. e. on 17-13-1988 (vide Ex. P. 8) and the appellant was arrested (vide Ex. P. 9 ). ( 7 ) DURING investigation Manibai was sent for medical examination. Lady Dr. ( 6 ) THE prosecutrix Manibai was recovered from the appellant the same day i. e. on 17-13-1988 (vide Ex. P. 8) and the appellant was arrested (vide Ex. P. 9 ). ( 7 ) DURING investigation Manibai was sent for medical examination. Lady Dr. (Mrs.) B. Sabarwal (P. W. 8) examined her on 18-3-1988 and opined that she was between 15 to 16 years of age. Ex. P. 16 is the connected report. ( 8 ) FOR determination of the prosecutrixs age Dr. Katarkar (P. W. 1) took skiagrams on 21-3-1988 and opined that she was between 16 to 18 years of age. ( 9 ) DR. K. C. Mahajan (P. W. 9) had examined the appellant on 18-3-1988 and opined that he was capable of committing sexual intercourse. ( 10 ) AT the conclusion of the investigation the appellant was prosecuted with the result already stated. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the appellant the prosecutrix Manibhai had accompanied him on her own accord and later was beaten and was forced to implicate him. ( 12 ) THE most crucial question in this appeal is of the age of the prosecutrix on the date of the alleged offence. ( 13 ) IT may be stated that according to the prosecution evidence relating to the occurence which I find to be credible the offences were committed on 31-3-1985, Dr. (Mrs) Sabarwal (P. W. 8) had on 18-3-1988 examined the prosecutrix and had found her to be aged about 15 to 16 years. On 21-3-1988 Dr. Katarkar (P. W. 1) on the basis of the ossification test had opined that the prosecutrix was between 17 to 18 years of age. ( 14 ) ON a careful consideration I am of the view that keeping in mind the margin of error in the opinion as to age, the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Judge that on the date of the offences the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age and was a minor is on firm foundation and so also the conclusion that it could not be said that sexual intercourse committed with her by the appellant was with her free consent. We have it in the evidence of the prosecutrix that the appellant used to say that he knows Jadutona. We have it in the evidence of the prosecutrix that the appellant used to say that he knows Jadutona. ( 15 ) THE testimony of Onkarsingh (P. W. 4) resident of Hasalpur is that the appellant had told that Manibai and Savitribai were his daughters. ( 16 ) ON a careful consideration of the material on record, I am of the view that the appellants convictions for the offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the I. P. C. are on firm foundation and cannot be interfered with. ( 17 ) THIS brings us to the question of sentence; On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that sentence of 5 years R. I. for the offence under Section 376 I. P. C. would am ply meet the ends of justice and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is, therefore, accordingly reduced. ( 18 ) IN the result, with the aforesaid modification in the sentence in respect of the offence under Section 376 I. P. C. , the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal partly allowed. .