JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Ctfurt of Shri K.C. Sood, Sessions Judge, Kangra division at Dharmshala, dated 18.05.1990, whereby respondent R. L. Narayan, who at the relevant tine was an Army personnel, has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that Raj Kumari (PW-14), who is the prosecutrix in this case is the daughter of Gurbachan Ram, who is also an Army person. At the relevant time, i.e. in September, 1987, he was posted at Holta Camp, Palampur. Respondent was a Havildar and was also posted at the same place. Both of them, i.e. the prosecutrix and the respondent were neighbours. The respondent is married and was living with his family in those days. Both the families were on visiting terms with each other, being neighbours. 3. On 11.09.1987, the prosecutrix went to her School as usual to take her papers. After doing so, she left for Palampur in the company of the respondent and did not return home. She was ultimately recovered from Haldwani on 17.10.1987 from the house of Nain Singh (PW-5) where she was living with his family. 4. The version of the prosecutrix is that, being neighbours, they were on visiting terms and she used to call the respondent as uncle. On 11.09.1987, she took her science paper and after completing the same, she came to the bus stand alongwith her friend, i.e Vandana. The respondent met her at the bus stand. He had brought a jeep with him. Both of them boarded the jeep and hereafter went to a restaurant where they had tea. The respondent then disclosed to her that they would go to Pathankot, where he will buy her good clothes. They then boarded a bus and reached Pathankot in the evening. At Pathankot, the respondent bought a suit for her. They spent the night in a hotel, where the respondent is alleged to have raped the prosecutrix by having forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the next morning, they both left for Delhi. At Delhi also, they stayed in a hotel. There also they had sexual intercourse, though according to the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent. They spent the night in a hotel, where the respondent is alleged to have raped the prosecutrix by having forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the next morning, they both left for Delhi. At Delhi also, they stayed in a hotel. There also they had sexual intercourse, though according to the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent. They stayed in Delhi for two days and from there, they went to Tirupati, Respondent brought the prosecutrix back to Delhi from Tirupati and from Delhi they both came to Pathankot and then they went to Haldwani. Thereafter the respondent left the prosecutrix in the house of one Nain Singh at Haldwani. The respondent used to write letters to the prosecutrix but had forbidden her to do so, lest they should be discovered. After some days, the police came to Haldwani and brought her back to Palampur. 5. On a case having been registered, investigation was conducted, curing the course of which, the suit which was purchased by the respondent for the prosecutrix and the photographs of .the respondent and the prosecutrix together, which they had taken during the jaunt at India Gate and Rajghat, were taken into possession. 6. Ultimately, a charge was framed for the offences under Sections 366/3 76 I.P.C. against the respondent for having abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape on her. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 7. The first factor to be considered in this case is the age of the prosecutrix as the commission of the alleged offence under Section 366 I.P.C. depends on this. As per para 7 of the impugned judgment, the Public Prosecutor, who appeared before the trial court admitted that there is no credible evidence on record to show that Raj Kumari was less than 18 years of age at the crucial time. 8. The prosecution has produced three sets of evidence in order to prove the age of the prosecutrix, namely, the ossification test conducted by the radiologist, the certificate issued by the Headmistress of Government Girls High School, Palarapur, wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix is indicated to be 10.07.1972 and the oral evidence of her father, i.e. Gur-bachan Ram (PW-3). 9. 9. The learned trial Court has relied on the case reported as Molu Ram v. State of Haryana (1986 (II) R.C.R. 142) for the finding that entries in the school register cannot be implicitly relied upon to prove the age and the reliability of the entire depends upon the credibility of the person who gives information to the school concerned. The observations of the above case were relied on by the trial Court, wherein it is mentioned that it is known that at the time of getting the child admitted in the School, the parents generally have in mind the prosects of getting into service, for which the maximum age has been prescribed. It is just possible that an offer might be made to minimise the age of the child. Therefore, in these circumstances, the school certificate has rightly been discarded by the trial Court in the present case. 10. Gurbachan Ram (PW-3) deposed that Raj Kumari was born on 10.07.1972. In cross-examination, he has however, admitted that he was married at the age of 21 or 22 years and the prosecutrix was born after six years of his marriage in the house of his in-laws. This means, that she was born when her father was 27 and 28 years of age. In the court, he has stated his age to be 46 years. Evidence was recorded on 27.03.1989. This would mean that the prosecutrix was about 19 years of age at the time of occurrence. This belies the alleged abduction of the prosecutrix by the respondent, as she was not less than 18 years of age, at the relevant time. Moreover, even on the facts, for the reasons disclosed herein below, abduction is not proved and it is a clear case of consent. 11. In so far as the radiological age is concerned, Dr. M.S. Kapila (PW-2) conducted the medical examination of Raj Kumari on 20.10.1987 and found that she was habitual to sexual intercourse. PW-11 (Dr. G.D. Gaur) conducted the radiological examination of Raj Kumari prosecutrix. From the examination of the X-Rays, he concluded her age to be between 17 to 19 years. This would mean that the age of the prosecutrix has not been conclusively proved by the prosecution to be below 18 years. 12. PW-11 (Dr. G.D. Gaur) conducted the radiological examination of Raj Kumari prosecutrix. From the examination of the X-Rays, he concluded her age to be between 17 to 19 years. This would mean that the age of the prosecutrix has not been conclusively proved by the prosecution to be below 18 years. 12. To sum up, the three pieces of evidence produced by the prosecution, apart from being non-conclusive are also contradictory and it has failed to, prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, technically the charge under Section 366 I.P.C. fails. 13. Even on merits, the said charge is not made out against the respondent. Abduction is defined under Section 362 and the fulcrum of that offence is that a person has to be compelled by the accused by force or any deceitful means induced to go from any place only then it is said to be a case of abduction. However, the prosecution case, as narrated above, clearly indicates that when the respondent is alleged to have met Raj Kumari at the Bus Stand on 11.09.1987, she readily accepted his proposal to accompany him to Pathankot where he bought her nice clothes. She accepted the suit so purchased by him and also spent the night with him in a hotel there, desptie knowing that she had not informed her parents regarding her whereabouts. Not only that, she accompanied him to Delhi thereafter and from Delhi to Tirupati. The photographs Ex.P-9 and P-l show the respondent and the prosecutrix standing in the lawns of India Gate, New Delhi and Rajghat. In Ex.P-9, i.e. photograph taken with the backdrop of India Gate, the respondent has his arms around her. She is dressed nattily and the smile on her face indicates all. Similarly, in photograph Ex.P-10 which appears to be taken at Rajghat, New Delhi where the Samadhi of the Father of the nation. Mohan Dass Karam Chand Gandhi is located again the respondent has his arms around the prosecutrix who is nicely ensconced in his partial embrace with the side of her body touching his side. Not only that, she has a dreamy look on her face. Both these photographs do not indicate that the prosecutrix was forcibly abducted by the respondent or even by deceit or any inducement. This completely rules out abduction. 14. Not only that, she has a dreamy look on her face. Both these photographs do not indicate that the prosecutrix was forcibly abducted by the respondent or even by deceit or any inducement. This completely rules out abduction. 14. In the light of the above evidence, we may now examine the statement of the prosecutrix herself. She appeared as PW-14, being the last witness of the prosecution. The relevant portion of her testimony indicates that she had come to bus stand alongwith her friend Ms. Vandana after finishing her paper. The respondent met her at the bus stand and asked her how she had fared in- her paper to which she replied that she had done well. He then asked where she was going to which she replied that she was going to her friend Meenus house. He then asked her to accompany him to which she replied that she would go all alone. The respondent then asked her to send Vandana away. On her asking, Vandana left and both of them boarded the jeep brought by the respondent and went to a hotel, where they had tea. Thereafter, they went to Pathankot in a bus. There, they spent night in a hotel. Both of them slept in the same room. The prosecutrix then tried to extricate her-self but failed to do so. It is very hard to believe that she was so innocent and angelic that she could not shout or ask for help, if she was not a willing party to the escapade. The matter does not rest here. Next morning, she went with the respondent to Delhi, where they stayed in a hotel. There also, the respondent committed sexual intercourse with her In this portion of her statement, there is not even a whisper that the respondent did so against her will and/or after extending any threat. This necessarily implies that she was a consenting party. He took her to Fauji Serai, where they stayed for two days and then they went to Tirupati. She however, could not remember the number of days, they spent there. There also, they enjoyed the pleasures of sex as per her testimony. Here also, there is no mention that she was not a willing or consenting party or that there was any threat from the respondent. Then again they came to Delhi and from Delhi to Haldwani. She however, could not remember the number of days, they spent there. There also, they enjoyed the pleasures of sex as per her testimony. Here also, there is no mention that she was not a willing or consenting party or that there was any threat from the respondent. Then again they came to Delhi and from Delhi to Haldwani. The respondent took her to the house of Nain Singh. He had named her Sonu and she used to receive letters from the respondent by this name. The respondent had forbidden her to write any letter to him, lest he may be caught. He left Haldwani the same day by telling Nain Singh that she was his wife and should be kept for a few days there. Here also, the conduct of the prosecutrix speaks volumes of her attitude. She knew that she has been falsely stated to be the wife of the respondent, but she did not enlighten Nain Simgh about the reality. She stayed with Nain Singhs family at Haldwani but there is nothing in her examination to suggest that she disclosed anything about the incident. 15. She has been subjected to a searching cross-examination. She has stated that the respondent had asked her to board the bus. She also admitted that the bus was full of passengers however she neither protested nor complained to a body in the bus as the respondent happened to be her uncle. She also did not inform her parents before going with the respondent nor deemed it proper to do so. Initially, she has stated that she had protested in whisper. She has also stated that after spending the night with the respondent at Pathankot in a hotel, the respondent threatened her that he would kill her if she disclosed anything is to anyone and that he also showed her a knife. This appears to be a concoction on her part. She did not tell anything to the police, when she was interrogated. She was admitted that there were several people including military personnel at the Bus Stand on their way to Delhi. She did not complain to any of them. She did not ask the respondent to ring up her father after reaching Delhi. This clearly indicates the trend of her thinking. From Delhi to Tirupati they covered a distance of about 2000 to 2500 KMs. She did not complain to any of them. She did not ask the respondent to ring up her father after reaching Delhi. This clearly indicates the trend of her thinking. From Delhi to Tirupati they covered a distance of about 2000 to 2500 KMs. but in the way she did not complain to anyone in the train or at any other place. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that she was a consenting party. 16. In the concluding para of her cross-examination, she has clearly stated that she did not protest or contradict the respondent when he introduced her as his wife. She has however, stated that she did not do so as she was scared. This again is an after-thought for obvious reasons. 17. It is manifest from the testimony of the prosecutrix herself that she had a nice holiday in the company of the respondent at his expense willingly and voluntarily. It stands to reason that he would demand his pound of flesh in the form of sexual favoures from her, which she willingly gave. 18. As already discussed above, the photographs Ex.P-9 and P-10 clearly indicate the relationship between the two. Moreover, the letters stated to have been written by the respondent, which are part of the evidence on record, have been written in very endearing terms by the respondent addressing her as Sonu. She herself has stated in her examination-in-chief that she had been receiving letters from the respondent in that name. All this evidence clearly establishes the liaison between the two and, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that if not in love with him, Raj Kumari was at least fond of the respondent. Though she has stated that he was her uncle, yet she was not averse to the idea of having a long holiday in his company without informing her parents and also granting him sexual favoores in return. 19. In view of the testimony of the prosecutrix, it is not necessary to discuss the rest of the evidence, which has been discussed in detail in the impugned judgment. Needless to say that the respondent has rightly been acquitted of the charge of rape. 20. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. The bail and surety bonds of the respondent are discharged. Appeal dismissed.