JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Special Judge (Sati Nivaran)and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he has convicted the accused appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment; to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment on the second count; and to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that PW 6 Rameshwar Prasad submitted a written report Ex. P.9 on 1.12.1997 at Police Station Nahargarh, Jaipur to the effect that his daughter had gone to market along with his elder daughter's son on 28.11.1997 When she did not turn up till late night, they started searching her and also enquired from their relations. While giving description of the girl and the age of the child, he requested for tracing them out. He stated the names of the girl and the child as Monika and Deepak respectively. 3. On 5.12.1997 Rameshwar again submitted a report, Ex. P.7 regarding the kidnapping of his minor daughter and grand-son by accused Usman s/o Riyaz Khan, in which he alleged that he is engaged in selling fruits and Usman was working with him as his servant. On 28.11.1997 at 12.30 p.m. he had sent Usman to bring his meals from his house, but he did not turn up till 3.00 p.m. He went to his house and on enquiry, he was informed that Usman has taken away his grand-son aged 11/2 years by saying that he will come after taking round of the market. He further alleged that her younger daughter Monika aged 14 years and is a student of Class VII had returned home early from the school on that day was also not available at home. On being asked to her elder daughter, she informed that Monika has gone to her friend. On enquiry from her friends, they informed that Monika did not come. On being asked to her elder daughter, she informed that Monika has gone to her friend. On enquiry from her friends, they informed that Monika did not come. He searched for Monika, Deepak and Usman for two days and having failed to trace them, he had lodged a report at the police station on 30.11.1997 about missing of Monika and Deepak. Apprehending that accused Usman has kidnapped both of them, he lodged a report and requested for action. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report police registered a case vide FIR No. 244/97, Ex. P.8 for offence under Section 363, IPC and proceeded to investigate the case. 5. During the course of investigation, on 3.1.1998 Mst. Prem PW 3 produced Deepak aged 11/2 years before the police and disclosed that he was her elder daughter's son and Usman had kidnapped Deepak and her daughter Monika. She further disclosed that she found the child weeping in the gallery of a house situated in Mishra-Raoji-Ka-Rasta. The police prepared recovery memo Ex. P.12 and handed over the child to Mst. Prem vide Ex. P.13 on the same day. 6. The police recovered Kumari Monika on 19.3.1998 vide memo Ex. P.1, got her medically examined on 21.3.1998 vide Ex. P.6 and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The police also arrested the accused on 19.3.1998 vide arrest memo Ex. P.12 and got him medically examined vide Ex. P.10. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused for offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 7. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of record and after hearing Counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor framed charges against the accused under Sections 363,366 and 376, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses and also exhibited documents Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.13. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing against him. The accused did not choose to examine any witness in his defence. 9. 8. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses and also exhibited documents Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.13. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing against him. The accused did not choose to examine any witness in his defence. 9. On completion of trial, the learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the accused and Public Prosecutor and considering the evidence and material on record, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 10. I have heard Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Counsel for the accused appellant and Miss Sumitra Goyal, Public Prosecutor and carefully gone through the judgment under appeal and the record. 11. The accused faced trial for offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376, WC and was found guilty of the offences charged with by the Trial Court. In the cases of sexual offence, the age of the prosecutrix is of prime importance. The Trial Court on the basis of prosecution evidence had held that the prosecutrix was below 15 years of age at the time of commission of offence. To appreciate the findings on the question of age being below 15 years as recorded by the Trial Court, I have reappreciated the prosecution evidence with the help of Counsel for both sides. 12. PW 2 Santosh aged about 19-20 years is the elder sister of the prosecutrix. According to her statement, the prosecutrix is 4-5 years younger to her. 13. PW 3 Smt. Prem Devi, mother of prosecutrix Monika has stated that Monika was born on 15.12.1982. She had accompanied Monika for her admission in a Government School. Her elder daughter had filled in the form for admission. According to her statement her age was 14-15 years when site got married in 1969. 14. PW 4 Smt. Pushpa Pareek, Headmistress of the school has stated that according to the school record the date of birth of Monika is 15.12.1982. 15. PW 6 Rameshwar Kalal, father of the victim has also stated the date of birth of his. daughter Monika as 15.12.1982. In cross-examination he has stated that Monika's mother had accompanied her to the school for the purposes of getting her admitted. 16. I have also examined the record of the case. In Ex. 15. PW 6 Rameshwar Kalal, father of the victim has also stated the date of birth of his. daughter Monika as 15.12.1982. In cross-examination he has stated that Monika's mother had accompanied her to the school for the purposes of getting her admitted. 16. I have also examined the record of the case. In Ex. P.2, the Headmistress of the school has certified the age of the prosecutrix as 15.12.1982. Ex. P.3-A is the admission form which also specifically mentions the age of Monika as 15.12.1982. Ex. P.4-A is a transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster of a school where Monika studied upto IV Standard, which also proves that the date of birth of Monika is 15.12.1982. The admission register Ex. P.5-A also mentions the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 15.12.1982. From whatever angle. I view the evidence, the conclusion is inescapable that the prosecutrix was below 15 years of age at the time of commission of offence. 17. Learned Counsel for the accused has submitted that merely on the basis of entries regarding age in the school register, it cannot be said that prosecutrix was below 15 years of age. Relying upon a decision of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988 (Sapp.) SCC 604 , has argued that the entries regarding dates of birth contained in the scholar's register and the secondary school examination have no probative value. 18. I have perused the judgment referred to above and I am of the view that the aforesaid case is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In the cited case the Apex Court held that the entries regarding dates of birth contained in the school's register and the secondary school examination have no probative value, if no person on whose information the date of birth of the candidate was mentioned in the school record is examined. Whereas, in the present case, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded in the school record on the information of her mother PW 3 Smt. Prem Devi. Not only PW 3, PW 2 Santosh, elder sister of the prosecutrix and her father PW 6 Rameshwar Kalal have certified the date of birth of the prosecutrix as that of 15.12.1982. Not only PW 3, PW 2 Santosh, elder sister of the prosecutrix and her father PW 6 Rameshwar Kalal have certified the date of birth of the prosecutrix as that of 15.12.1982. Therefore, in my opinion, the entry regarding the age in school register is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The case cited, thus, is of no help to the appellant. 19. Now, having established that the age of the victim was below 15 years at the time of the alleged commission of offence, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant is guilty of kidnapping Kumari Monika and Deepak aged about 11/2 years from lawful guardianship of their parents, and that he kidnapped Monika with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. 20. The law is well-settled on the point that the prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not accomplice of the crime and there is no rule of law that testimony cannot be acted without corroboration on material particulars and her testimony has to be appreciated on the principles of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness and further, if the Court find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value it may search for evidence director circumstantial which would lend assurance to her testimony. 21. The Apex Court in the case of Bharwada Bhogin Bhai Hiriji Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cr.L.J. 1096 ; has observed that refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule is adding insult to injury. The Apex Court deprecated viewing evidence of such victim with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tainted with doubt, disbelief and suspicion. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and Others, 1996 (2) SCC 384 , has observed that the Court should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 22. 22. From the prosecution evidence, it is established that accused Usman Khan was serving under PW 6 Rameshwar Kalal and, therefore, it can well be presumed that he was known to all family members of the prosecutrix and used to visit her house. The possibility of the accused being intimate to the family members of the prosecutrix and their faith in him cannot be ruled out. As per the evidence on record, the accused took away with him child Deepak, son of elder sister of the prosecutrix with an intention that this child can be used as a weapon of threat in kidnapping Monika and, ultimately, he succeeded in doing so when she met him at' Barah Bhaiyon Ka Choraha', Gangauri Bazar at about 12.00-1.00 p.m. while she was going to school from her house. According to her statement, accused threatened Monika to accompany him, otherwise he will kill the child and because of threat, she left with the accused. The prosecutrix has described the entire incident in her statement. Her statement shows that accused kept Monika in his illegal custody against her Will for the period from 28.11.1997 to 19.3.1998, till she returned back from Ahmedabad with the father of accused on 19.3.1998 and during this period he took both of them to Delhi, Tonk, Phulera, Khandela, Ajmer, Ahmedabad, etc. and forced her to intercourse. Her statement further shows that accused threatened her with knife and also got some papers signed by her for the purposes of getting himself married with the victim. 23. There cannot be other evidence in such cases except the evidence of victim herself. However, this part of the prosecution story that accused Usman, who was serving under PW 6 Rameshwar Kalal and was cordial to his family members, kidnapped Kumari Monika along with a child, both minor, from the lawful guardianship of their parents on 28.11.1998 at about 1.00 p.m. stands corroborated by the statements of PW 2 Smt. Santosh, PW 3 Smt. Prem Devi, and PW 6 Shri Rameshwar. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it was accused Usman who kidnapped minor Monika and a child Deepak from the lawful guardianship of their parents with intent that Kumari Monika maybe compelled to marry him against her Will or that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and the Trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 363 and 366, IPC. 24. In view of the findings as to the guilt having been established, recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by this Court, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant cannot be held responsible for commission of offence under Section 376, IPC since the intercourse was with the consent of prosecutrix, looses its importance for the simple reason that the victim girl was below 15 years of age. In series of cases the Supreme Court and this Court have held that once it is proved that the girl was below the age of 16 years, the question of consent becomes irrelevant. Clause Sixthly of Section 375, IPC also provides that a man is said to commit rape, who has sexual intercourse with a woman with or without her consent when she is under 16 years of age. However in the present case, the prosecution by overwhelming evidence has proved that girl was below 16 years of age, she was kidnapped and subjected to sexual intercourse against her Will. Further, the accused has also not been able to explain that he took away Kumari Monika for some other reason except to fulfil his sexual lust. 25. The upshot of the above discussion is that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363,366 and 376 recorded by the Trial Court calls for no interference and deserves to be maintained. So far as sentences awarded to the appellant under the aforesaid sections is concerned, I am of the view that the terms of sentence of 3 years and 5 years under Sections 363 and 366, IPC is adequate. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, specially keeping in view the young age of the accused, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the term of sentence of 10 years under Section 376, IPC is reduced to minimum sentence of 7 years. 26. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, specially keeping in view the young age of the accused, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the term of sentence of 10 years under Section 376, IPC is reduced to minimum sentence of 7 years. 26. Consequently, the conviction of the accused appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC and the sentence awarded under Sections 363 and 366, IPC are maintained. However, the sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded under Section 376, IPC is reduced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. With this modification on the point of sentence only under Section 376, IPC, the appeal stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******