C. A. RAHIM, J. This Appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, on 12-9-1979. The appellant was convicted under Section 363, IPC and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for four years. 2. The prosecution case is that on 17-12-1977 the appellant came to the house of the complainant and told him that his Mummy had called Chameli, the victim girl. So Chameli accompanied the appellant and proceeded to the west of the house where there is a grove and a canal. On the way accused Ram Chandra, Kali Charan and Ram Raj joined them. PW-2 Babu Ram and Mata Din saw them to go together. When Chameli did not return to the house, Munshi (PW-1) father of Chameli went in her search but he did not find his daughter in the house of Rama, Mummy of the appellant. Babu Ram (PW-2) and Mata Din told him that they saw his daughter going with the appellant and other. The complainant searched for his daughter for about a week but could not trace her and on 12-12-1977 lodged an F. l. R. Chameli was kept in the house of Rama during the night and the next day she was taken to the house of Prem Raj where from she was taken by the appellant to Shahjahanpur and kept her in his house for a day. The appellani then took her to village Bahadurpur, District Fatehgarh and kept her in the house of his Behnoi for 4-5 days wherefrom she was recovered by police. The victim girl was sent for medical examination which was done by PW-5 Dr. M. Agarwal on 23-12-1977. PW-6 B. D. Saxena did the X-ray of the joints of the victim girl and Dr, Agarwal prepared the report. According to the report she was aged about 16 years. No definite opinion regarding rape can be given as the girl was used to sexual-inter course. The investiga tion was done. A charge-sheet under Sec tions 363 and 376, IPC was filed against the appellants and others. 3. During trial six witnesses were ex amined on behalf of the prosecution. Ac cused Lala Ram examined himself as D. W. 1. PW-1 Munshi, the complainant and father of the victim girl, who proved the taking of the girl on pretext by the appel lant. 3. During trial six witnesses were ex amined on behalf of the prosecution. Ac cused Lala Ram examined himself as D. W. 1. PW-1 Munshi, the complainant and father of the victim girl, who proved the taking of the girl on pretext by the appel lant. He has also proved the F. l. R. PW-2 Babu Ram saw the girl in the company of the appellant and others and reported the matter to the complainant. PW-4 is the victim girl PW-5 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl PW-6 Dr. B. D. Saxena is the X-ray Technician. PW-3 Karma Prasad is the Head Clerk who registered the case and prepared a chik report. In this the I. O. has not been ex amined. The appellant in his examination as D. W. 1 has denied the incident. He has stated that he went to his brother-in-laws house where he saw the victim girl. She went there voluntarily and did not return even they tried to do so. The police came there after 3-4 days and arrested him. The learned Judge relying on the evidence and materials on the record convicted and sen tenced the appellant in the aforesaid man ner. The trial Judge acquiitcd the appellant under Section 376, IPC with a view that she was 16 or 16-1/2 years of age and being a consenting party, no offence of rape was committed by the appellant. 4. The learned Counsel Sri Brijesh Sahai, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that there was delay in lodging the F. l. R. The occurrence took place on 17-12-1977 and the F. l. R. lodged on 24-12-1977. The prosecution case is that after she was taken out on 17-7-1977 she did not return till the night. Thereafter her father searched for her. At that time witnesses Babu Ram and Mata Din told him towards the evening of the next day that his daughter was seen in the company of Lala Ram appellant and others. There after he searched in all probable places but could not find her and thereafter he lodged an F. I. R. The conduct of the complainant seems to be usual and if about a weeks time elapsed for search of his daughter in the neighbouring villages and in all pos sible places it cannot be said that the delay was deliberate and in order to implicate him. The name of the appellant transpired on the next day when the complainant met with Babu Ram and Mata Din. The said fact has been corroborated by PW-2 Babu Ram and it is further corroborated from the admitted fact that the police recovered the victim girl from the brother-in-laws house of the appellant. He was also found there and arrested. So I do not consider that the delay caused in lodging the F. I. R. has prejudiced the accused-appellant in anyway. 5. The learned Counsel has argued at length stating that the girl was major for which the charge under Section 361, IPC cannot be sustained, since the trial Judge held that she was a consenting party. 6. The charge was framed under Sec tion 363, I. P. C against the appellant and he was also convicted under that section, Section 361, IPC is definition of kidnapping from lawful guardianship. It speaks that if a girl under 18 years of age is taken or enticed away out of keeping of the lawful guardian without the consent of the guar dian, is said lo kidnap such girl from the lawful guardianship. 7. The ossification test was done on different joints of the victim girl. The opinion was that her age was about 16 years on the date of the examination. The learned Counsel has submitted that the Supreme Court has held in different case that the age as determined by ossification test would vary two years on either side. Accordingly the learned Counsel submits that age of the victim girl would be about 18 years at the time of examination. 8. From the X-ray report it appears that the epiphyses around the elbow were united. The lower end of radius and ulna were not fused. Modi in the Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology has annexed one table at page 33 showing age in years of the Appearance and Fusion of some of the joints as observed by different Authors. At page 34 it is mentioned with reference to Lal & Townsend that Fusion of Ulna and Radius of a female of Uttar Pradesh takes place in between 18-19 years. So according to the table age of the victim girl did not reach 18 on the date of the examination. Besides the ossification test she was also clinically examined by PW-5 Dr. M. Agarwal. So according to the table age of the victim girl did not reach 18 on the date of the examination. Besides the ossification test she was also clinically examined by PW-5 Dr. M. Agarwal. She found 14 x 14 teeth with spaces of last molar. The weight: was 40 kg. the height was 4 11". Modi in his book at page 29 has provided a chart wherefrom it appears that the average periods of erruption of the temporary or permanent the first Molar is in between 6th-7th year the second Molar in between 12th-14th year and the third Molar of Wisdom teeth in between the age of 17th to 25th year. It has been stated that after the eruption of the second molar teeth the body of the jaw grows posteriority and the ramus is elongated to make room for the appearance of the third molar teeth. Hence, during the examination of a minor for determining his age, a note should always be made as to whether there was a space in the jaw behind the second molar teeth, if the third molars were absent. Lall and Townsend made a research of about 125 girls of Lucknow region but he found six out of 125 girls whose third molar ap peared prior to 17-18 years. 9. In the instant case the third molar did not appear. So according to the chart and the result of the research work of Lall and Townsend the girl did not reach the age of 17 years. The victim girl developed second molar which appears in between 12-14 years. So from the clinical examina tion it appears that she has completed the age of 14 years but did not reach the 17th year. If it is taken along with the result of ossification test the reason for the opinion given by PW-5 Dr. M. Agarwal comes to light. In cross- examination she has stated MAINE UPER KI BABAT RAJ KAYAM KARNE ME MODI KI KITAB KO TABLE PAR ITMINAN KIYA TO MERI RAI ME MARIJ KI UMRA ME CHHAH MAHINE SE JYADA KA HER PHER NAHI HO SAKT AHAI. 10. It is true that the Supreme Court has decided that there may be variation of two years on either side with regard to the age determined by the ossification test. 10. It is true that the Supreme Court has decided that there may be variation of two years on either side with regard to the age determined by the ossification test. But in this case I find that the Doctor did not solely depend on the result of the ossification test but some clinical test was done and her observation is the result of both ossification and clinical test. She is of the opinion that age of the victim girl was 16 years but there might be variation of six months and no more. I have gone through the relevant pages of Modis Medical Jurisprudence and I find that the opinion of P w-5 Dr. M. Agarwal is based on sound reasonings and rightly accepted by the learned trial judge. 11. Referring the case of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 924 (FB) the learned Counsel has submitted that since the girl reached the age of discretion and since there is no allegation of induce ment or taking from lawful guardianship it does not amount to an offence covered by Section 361 punishable under Section 363, IPc 12. From the deposition of PW-1 complainant and from PW-3 the victim girl deposed that she was taken out of lawful guardianship under a false pretext that Mummy of the appellant was calling her. So, it is not true that there is no allegation of inducement or taking from lawful guardianship by deceitful means. The girl is married one and she came back from her Sasural a few days back and wait ing for her Gauna. The defence plea that she voluntarily went to the house of the appellants brother-in-law does not seem to be probable since the said house is situated in a different district and there was no reason for her to go there not accompanied by the appellant. If it was a reason that the victim girl was otherwise annoyed with her guardian and left the custody of her father voluntarily it would have been accepted that she would have gone to the house of any of her relatives. It is not usual nor natural that she will take entry to the house of the appellants brother-in-law that too at diffirent district unknown to her. It is not usual nor natural that she will take entry to the house of the appellants brother-in-law that too at diffirent district unknown to her. Presence of the appellant at the time of the recovery is another cir cumstance which if taken alongwith the evidence of PW-2 that the victim girl was seen going in the company of the appel lant makes no room of doubt and indicate, that case of the prosecution is true. The appellant has also raised a plea of enmity for false implication. It also makes presence of the victim girl improbable in the house of his brother-in-law voluntarily if at all there was any enmity in between two families. The victim girl should not have gone voluntarily in the house of the appellants brother-in-law with whom, ac cording to the defence, there was enmity. I do not consider, therefore, that there was no taking by unlawful means from the law ful guardianship of the complainant. I also agree with the view of the learned trial Judge that she was a consenting parly but considering the age I also find that the offence of kidnapping has been com mitted by the appellant. In case of a mar ried lady, though minor, the Supreme Court decision with regard to age of dis cretion referred by the learned Counsel would have no application. 13. In the result, the Appeal is dis missed, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are hereby affirmed. He is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed. .