After a perusal of the record, it is clear that the charges levelled against the present appellant Rajkumar stand fully proved from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in the case. Both the girls Rukhsana (P.W.12) and Madhu (P.W.14), who had been kidnapped or abducted by the appellants Rajkumar, were minor at the time of the incident, stands fully proved from the evidence on record and as has also been held by the trial Court in paras 8 and 9 of the judgment. There is no need to hold otherwise in this regard that the girls were minor at the time of the incident. From the version of Rukhsana (P.W.12), it is dear that she, along with Madhu, had gone to the bus stand at Ambikapur, where they had met with the accused Rajkumar (witness had identified the accused Rajkumar), and that the accused had told her to go with him to Sukhri Sapna village, but she had refused and, then the accused had made her smell something and, then, he had taken her and also Madhu along with him. From the version of Rukhsana, it appears that, before reaching Sukhri Sapna village, the accused had committed the wrong act (meaning thereby sexual intercourse) with her under a tree at about 12.00 in the night and, then, the accused had taken her to his house and had kept them with his wife. From the version of Rukhsana, it also appears that Madhu had told the wife of the accused that the accused had committed the wrong act with Rukhsana and also that they had been forcefully brought by the accused and, then, the wife of the accused had informed the police and when the police had come, they had told the police that the accused had committed the wrong act with Rukhsana, due to which she had suffered pain. The version of Rukhsana (P.W. 12) is fully supported by the version of Madhu (P.W.14). The version of Rukhsana (P.W.12) about the sexual intercourse having been committed with her, also stands corroborated by the version of Dr. (Smt.) S. P. Jaiswal (P. W.7),who had examined Rukhsana on 11.1.1988, a nor she and Madhu had been recovered from the house of the accused Rajkumar. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex. The version of Rukhsana (P.W.12) about the sexual intercourse having been committed with her, also stands corroborated by the version of Dr. (Smt.) S. P. Jaiswal (P. W.7),who had examined Rukhsana on 11.1.1988, a nor she and Madhu had been recovered from the house of the accused Rajkumar. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex. P-15) also goes to support the prosecution version regarding the sexual intercourse having been committed with the minor girl Rukhsana, because blood and spermatozoa were found on the underwear of Rukhsana and the slides prepared by the Lady Doctor from the vaginal smear of Rukhsana. Badrunnisa (P.W.l) is the mother of the minor girl Rukhsana and from her version also, it is clear that her daughter Rukhsana had disappeared from the house and she was missing about nine days and that, she had lodged the report at the Thana and that, at the time of the incident, her daughter was aged about 11 years. The recovery of both the girls Rukhsana and Madhu also stands proved from the version or Darbari Ram (P.W.4) and Hariram (P.W.5), before whom the girls were recovered and who had also signed the Panchnama (Ex. P-5) about the recovery. It is also proved from the version of these witnesses, that the girls had told them that the accused had abducted them from Ambikapur. Thus, after considering the prosecution evidence conduced in· the case, it cannot be said that the appellant Rajkumar had been falsely implicated, or that the charges levelled against him, have not been proved-as has been submitted on behalf of the appellant. There is, therefore, no merit in the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant Rajkumar, and the same deserves to be dismissed. The sentence· awarded by the trial Court also calls for no interference. This appeal filed on behalf of the appellant Rajkumar is dismissed as the same is found to be without any merit. The judgment dated 8.11.198lJ, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial No.130/88, convicting and sentencing the appellant Rajkumar to R. I. for five years under sections 363 and 3M (a) of the I. P.C. and further sentencing him to R. I. for seven. years under section 376 of the I. P.C. (both the sentences to run concurrently) is confirmed.