JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - Vijay Kumar Mahajan (49) was sent up for trial before the Court of Sessions, Ambala for having raped Krishna @ Kiran (21) while he was working as Additional Chief Architect, Haryana and Krishna had been meeting him for a suitable job as an apprentice Architect. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant has come up in appeal. 2. This case revolves around the relationship which Vijay Mahajan enjoyed with Krishna between November 1996 and February 13, 1997. Was the Additional Chief Architect a victim of the machinations of an ambitious young Architect on the look out for a job or was the young woman a victim of the appellants lust and desire to sexually exploit her before giving her an appointment as a draftsman (woman). 3. Krishna @ Kiran (PW 10) had passed 10+2 examination and also held a diploma in architecture from the Chandigarh Polytechnic College. She was in search for a job. She alongwith her father Mehar Chand (PW 14), a Junior Engineer in the Department of Electricity, Chandigarh were advised by a certain Mr. Sharma, an Architect of Sector 7 Chandigarh, to meet the appellant for a Government job. Krishna and her father met the appellant in his Chandigarh Office in the first week of November, 1996. The appellant enquired from her about her qualifications and asked her to hand over an application alongwith certificates which Krishna did after 2/4 days. The appellant asked her to meet him after 15 days. Krishna again met him after 15-20 days in his office to enquire about her application and she was told by the appellant that since her result had not been declared a decision would be taken only after the declaration of the result. The appellant told Krishna that he was going home by car and asked her to accompany him saying that nothing would happen and he would drop her on the way to bus stop. Upon the appellants insistence Krishna got into his car and was taken to the appellants residence, 677, Sector 6, Panchkula. 4. The appellant told Krishna that he was going home by car and asked her to accompany him saying that nothing would happen and he would drop her on the way to bus stop. Upon the appellants insistence Krishna got into his car and was taken to the appellants residence, 677, Sector 6, Panchkula. 4. The appellant was using the first floor as his residence and the ground floor had been let out to the Planning Department, Haryana. The appellant committed the rape of Krishna in the first floor of the said house and thereafter took Krishna back to Chandigarh and dropped her at the bus stand. 5. Krishnas result was declared on December 4, 1996 and she was successful. Krishnas father rang up the appellant, upon which the appellant asked him to bring sweets since Krishna had passed. Krishna alongwith her father went to the appellants house with a packet of sweets, the appellant asked them to furnish the marks sheet. Thereafter, in the last week of December, 1996 Krishna met the appellant in his office and handed over the marks sheet. She was told by the appellant that he was waiting for his promotion and after he got his promotion he would give her the promised job. The appellant again insisted on taking Krishna to his residential house where he again raped her and then left her at the bus stop hear her house. 6. On February 10, Krishna came to know through a newspaper that the appellant had been promoted as Additional Chief Architect, Haryana. She went to the appellants office on February 13, 1997 to find out about her job. She was told by the appellant that her appointment letter was with him and was lying at the residence. She was asked to accompany the appellant to his residence to receive the appointment letter. Krishna did not want to accompany the appellant but she was forced to do so by the appellant who told her that her work had been done. Krishna and the appellant reached the above mentioned first floor residence at 10.30 A.M. The appellant removed Krishnas salwar and underwear and removed his own clothes whereupon he committed forcible sexual intercourse. Krishna raised an alarm which attracted the officials of the Planning Department who were present on the ground floor. Two persons, namely, Aman Kumar and Jarnail Singh rushed upstairs and knocked on the door. Krishna raised an alarm which attracted the officials of the Planning Department who were present on the ground floor. Two persons, namely, Aman Kumar and Jarnail Singh rushed upstairs and knocked on the door. The appellant opened the door after some time and Jarnail Singh and Aman Kumar caught hold of him and also rescued Krishna from the flat. 7. A.S.I. Onkar Singh (PW 13) of Police Post Sector 6, Panchkula received a wireless message at 11.30 A.M. asking him to reach 677, Sector 6, Panchkula. A.S.I. Onkar Singh reached the said premises within five minutes and found Jarnail Singh and Aman Kumar holding the appellant. Krishna @ Kiran was sitting in a room upstairs and crying. A.S.I. Onkar Singh recorded her statement Ex. PR on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was registered at the Police Station at 12.30 P.M. under Section 376/506 Indian Penal Code 8. The investigator commenced investigation and had the bedroom of the appellant photographed, the bed sheet was taken into possession. Krishnas appointment letter was taken into possession from the appellants trouser pocket. The appellants car, a blue Maruti CH-01 P 7792 was also taken into possession. Rough site plan of the spot where the prosecutrix had been raped was prepared. The investigator recorded the statements of Jarnail Singh, Aman Kumar and H.C. Om Parkash (all three were witnesses who had also attested the various recovery memos). 9. The appellant was arrested and some articles were recovered from his personal search which were taken into possession. Krishna was medico-legally examined by Dr. Neeru Kapoor (PW 7) at 6.30 P.M. The Medical Officer found no marks of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. She found no marks of violence on the external genitalia. The Medical Officer noticed hymen was torn but there was no evidence of bleeding or oedema. Vaginal orifice admitted one finger tightly. There was slight redness on the vaginal orifice but no discharge was present. Vaginal swabs, vaginal smear slides, pubic hair and clothes etc. of the prosecutix were sealed and handed over to the police. 10. The appellants medical examination was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Raju (PW 8). Dr. S.S. Punia (PW 1) conducted the radiological examination of Krishna @ Kiran. The investigator also took into possession Krishnas C.B.S.E. certificate Ex. P9 wherein her date of birth had been recorded as February 1, 1976. of the prosecutix were sealed and handed over to the police. 10. The appellants medical examination was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Raju (PW 8). Dr. S.S. Punia (PW 1) conducted the radiological examination of Krishna @ Kiran. The investigator also took into possession Krishnas C.B.S.E. certificate Ex. P9 wherein her date of birth had been recorded as February 1, 1976. After completing the investigation in all respects the appellant was sent up for trial. 11. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 376 Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined Dr. S.S. Punia (PW 1) (as regards the radiological examination of the prosecutrix, the witness was of the opinion that Krishna was above 16-1/2 years). C. Ram Saran (PW 2) was examined to testify regarding the site plan prepared by him. Inspector Om Parkash (PW 3) prepared the final report. A.S.I. Devi Chand (PW 4) testified that he was on duty as incharge of Control Room, Panchkula and at 11.30 A.M. the received a telephonic message on telephone No. 100 from some unknown person who stated that some wrongful act was being committed in house 677, Sector 6, Panchkula. The message was flashed to Police Post, Sector 6 at 11.32 A.M. Sh. S.C. Thukral (PW 5), Chief Architect testified that the appellant was promoted as Additional Chief Architect on February, 10, 1997. Sh. S.K. Gupta, Administrative Officer, Department of Architect, Haryana appeared as P.W. 6 and stated that he had issued the appointment letter Ex. PG and the letter was despatched to Krishna on February 12, 1997 but the same was taken by hand by the appellant saying that he knew Krishna and he would deliver it to her. Dr. Neeru Kapoor appeared as P.W. 7, Dr. Rajesh Raju as P.W 8 and A.S.I. Gaje Singh as P.W. 9. 12. Krishna @ Kiran daughter of Mehar Chand appeared as P.W. 10 and gave her version of the incident. Krishnas father Mehar Chand appeared as P.W. 11, Sh. Aman Kumar Sharma of the Planning Department, Haryana appeared as P.W. 12 to testify regarding the occurrence that had taken place on February 13. A.S.I. Onkar Singh was examined at P.W. 13, Photographer Aman Kumar as P.W. 14 and H.C. Surinder Kumar as P.W. 15 and the prosecution closed the case. 13. Aman Kumar Sharma of the Planning Department, Haryana appeared as P.W. 12 to testify regarding the occurrence that had taken place on February 13. A.S.I. Onkar Singh was examined at P.W. 13, Photographer Aman Kumar as P.W. 14 and H.C. Surinder Kumar as P.W. 15 and the prosecution closed the case. 13. The accused was examined without oath under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code The counter story given by the accused-appellant was as under :- "I am innocent. Krishna alias Kiran PW prosecutrix used to visit my house in my absence to see the construction work and interior decoration work of first floor of House No. 677, Sector-6, Panchkula. The employees wanted to exploit the situation about her visit to my place and they were annoyed unnecessarily and they wanted to create a scandal out of it and I never indulged in any activities of rape, as alleged, nor I committed any sexual intercourse of any kind with Krishna alias Kiran. I am aged about 49-50 years, and I am married and I have grown up children and I was holding a responsible post and when I came to my house in routine without knowing that Krishna was there, I was taken unaware and was taken to the Police Station at the instance of some bad elements and was falsely involved in this case. I never allured Krishna that I will get her a job or committed any sexual intercourse with her at any time. I was not even competent to appoint Krishna as apprentice as it was within the power of the Chief Architect. The entire story and entire case of the prosecution is false and I am innocent. I tender pager messages contained in Ex. DB. (22 leaves) which are verified by the Controlling Authority of Page (MAX PAGE). Krishna alias Kiran mentioned in these messages indicates that Kiran had been contacting me in connection with interior decoration only." The appellant was called upon to enter defence and he tendered in evidence the log of pager No. 101427 for the months of November 1996, December 1996, January, February and March 1997. This log is Ex. DB, it runs into 22 pages and has been verified by the Controlling Authority of Pager (MAX PAGE). 14. This log is Ex. DB, it runs into 22 pages and has been verified by the Controlling Authority of Pager (MAX PAGE). 14. The learned trial judge accepted the prosecution evidence, rejected the defence altogether and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove its case with overwhelming evidence which consisted of the statement of the prosecutrix, the medical evidence, statement of Aman Kumar (PW 12) and the statements of Sh. S.C. Thukral (PW 5) and Sh. S.K. Gupta (PW 6). The statement of Sh. S.K. Gupta proved that the appointment letter was personally carried by the appellant. This very letter was recovered from his pocket after he was arrested. The report of Forensic Laboratory also conclusively proved that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Consequently, the appellant was found guilty of offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code 15. Learned counsel for the appellant contested the appellants conviction on several grounds, principally that the learned trial judge had not objectively considred the evidence and arrived at inconsistent finding. Certain material facts had been overlooked and wrong inferences had been drawn. The statement of the prosecutrix was challenged on the ground that her conduct exposed the falsehood of her accusation. The prosecutrix had alleged that she had been subjected to rape on three occasions yet each time rape had been committed in the appellants house at Panchkula. On all three occasions the prosecutrix had met him in his office in Sector 17 and each time she had been reluctant to accompany him to Panchkula. All the three days were working days and on each occasion the occurrence took place during office hours. Even if the factum of intercourse was accepted it was crystal clear that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in every sense. No woman would travel to a nearby town and submit herself meekly inspite of having the opportunity to protest and put up resistance. The prosecutrix had not even told her father about what had happened on the earlier two occasions. The evidence of the messages sent through a paging service was referred to and it was highlighted that Krishna @ Kiran had been messaging the appellant and asking him to contact her at the numbers given in the message. On January 1, she even wished the appellant a very happy and prosperous new year. The evidence of the messages sent through a paging service was referred to and it was highlighted that Krishna @ Kiran had been messaging the appellant and asking him to contact her at the numbers given in the message. On January 1, she even wished the appellant a very happy and prosperous new year. There were three messages in February 1997, two sent on February 6 and one on February 11. The last message was a congratulatory one. 16. Seduction or rape. A young woman in search of a job prepared to submit to the amorous advances of her prospective employer. A middle aged man in a position to grant favour and jobs exploiting a young, innocent woman who comes to him for employment. Such are the themes which naturally arise in the present case. The prosecution evidence is quite uncomplicated. The prosecutrix had frankly stated all that happened but her statement has to be taken with a pinch of salt for the reason that she did not complain after the first or second incident. She did not even complain after the third incident, but for the purposeful intervention of the Panchkula Police, the incident may have gone unnoticed. The prosecutrix would have got the job and the appellant sexual satisfaction. The prosecutrix was 21 at the time of the incident. The evidence of the paging messages was put to the prosecutrix when she was in the witness box. She admitted that she had been going to a interior decorator Nishi Sharma in Sector 22, Chandigarh. A person named Jaspal lived in her neighbourhood and his telephone number was 656977. Nishi Sharma also had a telephone. The prosecutrix admitted that there was a pager with the accused but denied the suggestion that she had telephoned the accused atleast 10-12 times and atleast 3 times sent him message on the pager to the effect that should contact her. She also denied that atleast 10 times she left the messages on the telephone. The evidence is overwhelming that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and there was a quid pro quo in the whole affair. The prosecutrix would get the job and the appellant a lustful satisfaction. She also denied that atleast 10 times she left the messages on the telephone. The evidence is overwhelming that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and there was a quid pro quo in the whole affair. The prosecutrix would get the job and the appellant a lustful satisfaction. The only question to be considered in this case is whether the appellant could be held guilty of the lesser offence of Section 376-B Indian Penal Code which makes it an offence for a public servant who takes advantage of his official position and induces or seduces a woman, who is in his custody, to have sexual intercourse with him but the sexual intercourse should not amount to rape. It is quite clear that evidence herein does not disclose the ingredients of rape. Krishnas consent to sexual intercourse is writ large. She was a willing party and had voluntarily submitted herself to the appellant to secure apprenticeship. It would be a moot point to be considered whether the appellant as a public servant could be held guilty of the lesser offence of Section 376-B Indian Penal Code 17. Krishna was not in the appellants custody in the sense that an accused is in the custody of the Jail Superintendent but she was being mentally controlled by the appellant firstly, with the promise of a job, and later with the job being actually offered to her. The appellant was a public servant and had seduced the prosecutrix by offering her a job and thereby enjoyed psychological control and custody over her. He was in a position to dominate the will of the prosecutrix whose position was very weak in comparison. 18. When a middle aged man seduces a young woman who is a major and who voluntarily submits herself to his sexual advances leading to intercourse, no offence is committed. Sexual relationship between two consenting adults is not punishable. It should be recognised that sexual mores are changing fast and one reads and hears about all kinds of sexual activity between adults, which would have astounded us a generation ago. Promiscuity is on the rise and morality on the decline. Therefore, it is not surprising that the appellant seduced the prosecutrix who was looking for a job but the appellant alone cannot be blamed for what happened. Part of the blame must be shared by the prosecutrix. Promiscuity is on the rise and morality on the decline. Therefore, it is not surprising that the appellant seduced the prosecutrix who was looking for a job but the appellant alone cannot be blamed for what happened. Part of the blame must be shared by the prosecutrix. Had there not been the anonymous telephone call which brought the Panchkula (Moral) Police into the picture, the mid morning sexual play would have gone unnoticed. The crime committed by the appellant is not of seducing the prosecutrix, but as public servant, he took advantage of his position in doing so. The prosecutrix was under his charge but it was an extremely grave misconduct on the part of the appellant to misuse his position and involve the prosecutrix in a sexual relationship. Although the offence was not one of rape but it certainly falls within the definition of the offence punishable under Section 376-B Indian Penal Code The appellant exposed himself to disciplinary action by his department and must have suffered loss of reputation and prestige. On the other hand he also exposed the prosecutrix in front of the eyes of her parents, relatives and friends. She would probably have to live with the reputation that she secured a job by offering herself to her employer. 19. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant is hereby converted from one under Section 376 Indian Penal Code to one under Section 376-B Indian Penal Code Ends of justice would be amply served if the appellant is sentenced to undergo sentence for the period already undergone by him. He shall also pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lac, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the prosecutrix. Appeal dismissed.