JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.8.81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, convicting the first, second and third appellants for the offences under sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentencing each of them to three years' rigorous imprisonment on each count. Fourth appellant Velji has been convicted for the offence under section 366 IPC and sentenced to three years' R.l. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded during the trial is that on 23rd Nov., 1978 at about 10 A.M., a report was lodged by the father of Smt. Dhuli, PW 1, that her daughter has been abducted by 12 persons named therein on 22.11.78 at 7 A.M. Mst. Dhuli was recovered by the police on 24.12.78. She was examined by Dr. Sushil Mehta, PW 11, on the same day. Twelve accused 1 persons were put to trial for the offences under sections 366, 376 and 147 IPC. The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 3. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by Mr. Soni appearing for the appellants that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. It is submitted that no external injuries have been found on the body of the prosecutrix Mst. Dhuli, which clearly demonstrates that she never resisted the act of sexual intercourse and, therefore, the conviction for the offence under section 376 IPC is not sustainable. It is also submitted that the doctor has opined that Mst. Dhuli was about 16 years of age and, as such, giving margin of one year, the court ought to have considered that she was of sixteen years of age. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued in support of the judgment. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. 6. PW 1 Mst. Dhuli disclosed her age as 13 years. She deposed that she alongwith Rama, Hakra, Shambhu, Hemti and Basanta had gone to village Padala for working on the construction of the road. While they were on the way at about 7 AM near village Pagdi, people of village Chhapariya viz, Toliya, Naru, Mehji, Hurji, Rangji, Deva and Velji met them. Accused Rangji caught hold of her hand and Toliya helped Rangji by showing a sword to Mst. Dhuli to keep her quiet. Rangji was armed with an axe and other accused persons were armed with lathies. Accused Rangji caught hold of her hand and Toliya helped Rangji by showing a sword to Mst. Dhuli to keep her quiet. Rangji was armed with an axe and other accused persons were armed with lathies. The accused persons took her to village Chhapariya. There, she was kept in the house of Mehji. She also stated that she was locked in a hut. In the hut, Rangji committed rape on her. Thereafter, accused Toliya and Deva committed rape on her. On the next day, she was taken to the forest Pativara. There, she was kept for 10-15 days. There again, accused Deva, Toliya and Rangji committed rape on her. Accused Velji used to be on the guard and provide food to her. Accused Rangji, Deva and Toliya used to stay with her in one room. They continuously committed rape on her for 1-15 days. Thereafter, she was shifted to village Detkiya and kept in the house of aunty of Rangji. She did not remember the name of his aunty. She was kept for 6-7 days there. She also stated that at village Detkiya, all the accused persons regularly used to commit rape on her. Thereafter, she was taken back to forest known as Pativara. There, Deva and Rangji used to commit rape on her. Once while she was in the forest, she heard the siren of the police vehicle passing through. On hearing this, accused Rangji ran away and she was rescued by the police. PW 3 Rama has supported PW 1 to the extent that all the accused persons had kidnapped Mst. Dhuli. So is the statement of PW 4 Basanta. PW 5 Jeevna disclosed the age of Mst. Dhuli as 13 years. PW 11 Dr. Sushil Mehta examined PW 1 Dhuli on 24.11.78. He opined that Mst. Dhuli was in between 15-16 years of age. He categorically stated that in no case, she could be above 16 years of age. It is also expressed that she has been subjected to intercourse. 7. Having scanned the prosecution evidence, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of PW 1 Dhuli. Learned counsel has not been able to show as to how Mst. Dhuli was above 16 years of age. The doctor has very categorically stated that she was in no case above 16 years of age. 7. Having scanned the prosecution evidence, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of PW 1 Dhuli. Learned counsel has not been able to show as to how Mst. Dhuli was above 16 years of age. The doctor has very categorically stated that she was in no case above 16 years of age. In view of this, I hold that the learned Judge was right in arriving at the ; conclusion that Mst. Dhuli was a minor. Mst. Dhuli has been raped by the three accused persons regularly at a different places. The prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in establishing a case against the appellants Rangji, Deva and Toliya that they kidnapped Mst. Dhuli and then committed rape on her. There is evidence of Dhuli and other witnesses that Velji used to be on the guard and he was accompanying the said three accused persons while kidnapping Mst. Dhuli and, therefore, their conviction for the offence under section 366 IPC also does not call for any interference. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal except the modification on the point of sentence so far as fourth appellant Velji is concerned. Velji has been convicted for the offence under section 366 IPC. His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and, accordingly, his bail bonds stand cancelled. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused appellants Rangji, Deva and Toliya is affirmed. They shall surrender to serve out the remaining sentence.Appeal Dismissed. *******