JUDGMENT Appellants Darshan Singh and Jaggu have been convicted under sections 456, 363 and 323 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, two years and fine of Rs.1000/- each respectively. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution case was that Hembai (PW 1) was less than 18 years of age on 17.11.1985. On that date, she was kidnapped by appellants Darshan Singh and his son Jaggu. They did so by committing criminal trespass in her house in the night. They caused injuries to the parents of Hembai (PW 1). Accused Jaggu aged about 18 years was neighbour of Hembai (PW 1). Preetbai (PW 2) is mother of Hembai (PW 1). She lodged report Ex.P-2 at Rajahara police-station. The police recovered Hembai (PW 1) from the house of the accused persons on the same day. The trial Court has held that Hembai (PW 1) was born on 2.12.1967 as per entry in the kotwari book which was seized by Vedram Yadu, Investigating Officer (PW 13) as per seizure memo Ex.P-5. Thus, she was aged 17 years, 11 months and 16 days, on the date of the incident. The entry in the kotwari book was challenged on behalf of the appellants on the ground that the person who made the entry has not been examined. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Molum v. Priya Brat AIR 1965 SC 282 in which it was held that an entry of birth made in an official record maintained by an illiterate Choukidar or somebody else at his request does not come within the purview of section 35 of the Evidence Act. That is not the case here. In Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 , it has been held that a birth entry made in the discharge of official duty can be proved by mere production of that entry and it is not necessary to examine the person who made it. The finding of the trial Court that Hembai (PW 1) was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident is correct. Hembai (PW 1), her mother Preetbai (PW 2) and her father Chamru (PW 3) have deposed that accused Jaggu and his father entered into her house and took her out forcibly. Hembal (PW 1) was a married girl. Hembai (PW 1), her mother Preetbai (PW 2) and her father Chamru (PW 3) have deposed that accused Jaggu and his father entered into her house and took her out forcibly. Hembal (PW 1) was a married girl. On that date, her gauna was to be performed. A party from her husband's house had come to take her. It is found from the evidence that Hembai (PW 1) was in love with accused Jaggu before the date of this incident. That finding has been recorded by the trial Court in paras 35 and 36 of the impugned judgment. The trial Court has however held that this could not justify the act of the appellants to take Hembai (PW 1) forcibly from her house. It is argued on behalf of the appellants by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Varadarajan v. State of Madras AIR 1965 SC 942 that accused Jaggu cannot be held guilty for kidnapping Hembai (PW 1) as she had attained the age of discretion and maturity and she had left her parental home of her own accord with accused Jaggu. From the evidence of 3 witnesses discussed above, it is clearly born out that Hembai (PW 1) did not leave her parental home of her own accord but she was dragged and forcibly, taken out by accused Jaggu and his father. So there lies the criminality. Physical taking of the girl by force without the consent of her parents would be covered by the offence of kidnapping. In the present case, the appellants forcibly took the girl from the house of her parents to their own house. Therefore, the offence under section 363 IPC is squarely made out. They entered into the house of parents of the girl in the night for doing so and voluntarily caused hurt to them. Therefore, the charges u/s.456 and 323 IPC are also established. The conviction of appellants under sections 456, 363 and 323 IPC recorded by the trial Court are unassailable. Coming to the question of sentence, it has been pointed out that accused Jaggu was 18 years of age on the date of the incident. He was in love with Hembai (PW 1) and therefore, some leniency should be shown on this point. His father appellant Darshan Singh merely assisted him in taking the girl to his house. Coming to the question of sentence, it has been pointed out that accused Jaggu was 18 years of age on the date of the incident. He was in love with Hembai (PW 1) and therefore, some leniency should be shown on this point. His father appellant Darshan Singh merely assisted him in taking the girl to his house. The accused did not do anything to enhance the gravity of the offence. This part of the argument raised on behalf of the appellants is acceptable. They were in jail for about 3 months and 9 days from 18.11.1985 to 27.2.1986. Therefore, the jail sentence for each of the offences mentioned above is reduced to the period undergone and these are further ordered to run concurrently. The sentence of fine is maintained.