Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. Charan Singh (PW-8) father of Miss Arpita (PW-7) aged about 14/1-2 years, the prosecutrix, and his wife were teachers by profession. On May 18, 1992 Charan Singh and his wife had gone to attend to their duty leaving Arpita at home. When Charan Singh returned home, he was told that Arpita was missing. On inquiry, he received information that accused Pankaj and Rajesh Kumar had taken her away. He then went to Police Station City, Palwal and recorded his statement at 7.10 P.M. on May 20, 1992 and on its basis, an F.I.R. was registered ten minutes later for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Pankaj and Rajesh Kumar were arrested on May 22, 1992 at Jaipur in proceedings under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and were detained. Arpita was also recovered from them and sent to the Nari Niketan. The accused were ultimately transferred to Palwal under the orders of the Magistrate. During the course of the investigation, it transpired that accused Jeetpal and Satwati had also been involved in the incident alongwith two others, namely, Rajni and Sheela. After their arrest, accused Rajni and Sheela were challaned separately and put to trial before the Juvenile Court whereas the other accused, i.e. Jeetpal, Satwati, Pankaj and Rajesh Kumar were charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(G) of the Indian Penal Code, and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined inter alia, PW-1 Dr. Krishan Kumar, who had medico-legally examined Pankaj and opined that he was capable of performing the sexual intercourse; PW-2 Dr. (Mrs.) Chandrika Malik, who had medico-legally examined Arpita on May 23, 1992 and had found marks of violence on her person and opined that the possibility of recent sexual activity could not be ruled out; PW-6 Ram Parshad, a Teacher of the Government Senior Secondary Girls School, Palwal, who brought the admission record to show that the date of birth of Arpita in the admission register was October 29, 1997; PW-7 Arpita, the prosecutrix herself; PW-8 Charan Singh, the father of the prosecutrix and the first informant; and PWs. 9 and 10 ASI Amar Nath and SI Rameshwar Dayal, the two Investigating Officers. 3. 9 and 10 ASI Amar Nath and SI Rameshwar Dayal, the two Investigating Officers. 3. The prosecution cased was then put to the accused and their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations levelled against them. Pankaj accused pleaded that Arpita was in love with him and that she had gone with him on her own accord and without any inducement and they had remained together till they had been apprehended by the police of police station, Bangru and a false story had been planted against him. The other accused also accepted the plea taken by Pankaj accused. 4. The trial Court found that it was the common case of the parties that Arpita had left the house on her own accord in the company of Pankaj and Rajesh Kumar and had lived with them till their arrest by the Jaipur police on May 22, 1992. The Court also opined that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that Satwati and Jeet Pal had any role to play in the incident, the moreso, as their names did not even figure in the F.I.R. and the prosecutrix herself was not clear as to their identity. The Court accordingly acquitted these two appellants. The trial Court, however, found that the evidence of Charan Singh when read alongwith the other evidence and the fact that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, established the case against the other two accused beyond doubt. Reliance was also placed on the evidence of Dr. Chandrika Malik, who had stated that the possibility of recent sexual activity on her part could not be ruled out. The trial Court accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as under :- Accused Rajesh Kumar U/s 376(g) IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused Pankaj U/s 366 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Accused Pankaj U/s 376 (g) IPC. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 5. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Three appeals have been filed against the judgment of the trial Court. Crl. Accused Pankaj U/s 376 (g) IPC. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 5. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Three appeals have been filed against the judgment of the trial Court. Crl. Appeal No. 531-DBA of 1994 by the State of Haryana impugning the acquittal of Satwati and Jeetpal; whereas Crl. Appeal Nos. 264-SB and 283-SB of 1994 by the two convicted accused, Rajesh Kumar and Pankaj. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence with their assistance. 7. It appears to be virtually the admitted position that on the date of incident, Arpita was a minor being less than 16 years of age. It is also the admitted position that she alongwith Pankaj and Rajesh Kumar had been found in Jaipur on May 22, 1992 by the police and had been detained. It has also come in the medical evidence that Arpita had traces of recent sexual intercourse and that she was otherwise habituated to sexual intercourse. It is also clear from the evidence that she had gone with the appellants voluntarily but the fact that she was less than 16 years of age makes this situation irrelevant with regard to the element of rape. Arpita deposed that while she was with the accused-appellants she had been repeatedly raped after she had been administered some sedative. It is equally true that she has made a large number of improvements in her evidence in Court but the broad fact of rape has been clearly proved for her evidence and even assuming for a moment that she was a consenting party, would not alter the legal position as she was less than 16 years of age as on that date. We, however, find no merit in the State appeal. No evidence to link the respondents therein has some on record. 8. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals. They are all dismissed.