O. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 24-7-1987, passed by the XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicting the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500 as fine under Section 366 IPC and four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC. In case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. The sentences were made to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the accused appellant alongwith others kidnapped Km. Tara (PW 3) on 12-8-1986 during the day time when her father Mohd. Nyaz (PW 2) and mother Sabira (PW 1) were away from the house. She was recovered on 22- 8-1986 by the police at about 2. 30 p. m. from Saadatganj bus stand. After completion of the investigation, the accused appellant and four others were charge-sheeted. 3. During trial before the Court of Sessions after commitment of the case, the appellant was charged under the above sections while others namely, Sabira, Wahidan, Phool Jahan and Chhuttan were charged under Sections 363/366 IPC. However, after trial, these four persons were acquitted of the charges. 4. The appellant had denied the charges framed against him. He had pleaded not guilty and had claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Km. Tara (PW 3) who unfolded the prosecution case regarding kidnapping and rape committed on her by the appellant, in all its material details. Sabira (PW 1) and Mohd. Nyaz (PW 2) had stated that their daughter was kidnapped when they were away from the house. 6. The report of this incident was lodged by Sabira (PW 1 ). She proved written report (Ext. Ka-1 ). After recovery of Km. Tara, she was given in the supurdagi of her parents (vide fard Ext. Ka.-2 proved by Sabira (PW 1 ). Smt. Kallo (PW 4) did not support the prosecution case as she stated that Km. Tara had gone to the house of appellant on her free will and that she had seen Km. Tara at the house of the appellant. Sita Ram (PW 5) is the recovery witness of Km. Tara. Ka.-2 proved by Sabira (PW 1 ). Smt. Kallo (PW 4) did not support the prosecution case as she stated that Km. Tara had gone to the house of appellant on her free will and that she had seen Km. Tara at the house of the appellant. Sita Ram (PW 5) is the recovery witness of Km. Tara. He did not support the prosecution case while in the witness box but in the cross-examination, he admitted his signature on the fard recovery. Ram Singh (PW 7) is also witness of recovery. He has stated that Km. Tara was recovered from Saadatganj bus stand alongwith the appellant. He admitted his signature on the fard recovery (Ext. Ka-3 ). Dr. Rama Sahai (PW 8) besides proving the report of Radiologist had also stated the age of Km. Tara as between 15-16 years. SI Gaurishankar (PW 6) is the Investigating Officer. He besides proving the charge sheet and site plan had also proved the recovery of the prosecutrix from Saadatganj bus stand in the presence of the witnesses on 28-8-1986. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant denied the prosecution case against him and alleged his implication due to enmity. 7. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the aforesaid charges and he was, therefore, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 8. I have heard Sri R. K. Dwivedi, amicus curiae for the appellant and Smt. Suniti Sachan, learned AGA. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that while the appellant had been convicted in the case under Sections 363, 366 IPC the remaining other four persons, who were also tried alongwith the appellant under the said sections, were acquitted by the learned trial Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that there was delay in lodging of the FIR besides contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. Regarding recovery witnesses, it has been argued that they are pocket witnesses of the police. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that doctor had categorically stated that no rape was committed. It has also been argued that there is contradiction in the place of recovery of the prosecutrix. 10. Regarding recovery witnesses, it has been argued that they are pocket witnesses of the police. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that doctor had categorically stated that no rape was committed. It has also been argued that there is contradiction in the place of recovery of the prosecutrix. 10. On the other hand, learned AGA has argued that in defence the appellant stated that the prosecutrix had gone with him of her own accord which is false and that even if it is taken as true, for the sake of argument the appellant is guilty of the offences for the reason that according to the doctors opinion, which was not challenged in the cross-examination, she was 15-16 years of age. 11. I have gone through the evidence on record and have given careful consideration of the arguments of the learned Counsel of the parties. 12. The prosecution case has been fully supported by Km. Tara (PW 3) who had narrated how she was kidnapped and rape was committed on her. Besides her, her parents had also stated that when they were away from the house, Km. Tara was kidnapped by the appellant and that when they went to his house, Km. Tara was not allowed to go with them. The fact that Km. Tara was at the house of appellant Nusrat gets support from the statement of Smt. Kallo (PW 4) who, although, stated that Km. Tara went on her own accord to the house of appellant but admitted that she had seen Km. Tara at the house of appellant. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any discrepancy in the statement except that there was contradiction in the statement of the mother and father of the prosecutrix to the effect that while mother stated that Km. Tara was left alone at her house, father stated that besides Km. Tara, small children were also left behind her at the house. In my opinion, this is not so material. There is nothing in the statement to show that any adult member was left behind in the house of take care of Km. Tara. 14. Besides this fact, there are statement of the witnesses to show that Km. Tara was recovered from the possession of the appellant. On this point Ram Singh (PW 7) has supported the prosecution case and has given details regarding recovery in his statement. Tara. 14. Besides this fact, there are statement of the witnesses to show that Km. Tara was recovered from the possession of the appellant. On this point Ram Singh (PW 7) has supported the prosecution case and has given details regarding recovery in his statement. The other witness of the recovery, namely, Sita Ram (PW 5) although, had not supported the prosecution case regarding recovery but in the cross- examination had admitted his signature on the recovery memo which falsifies his statement that he was not at all associated with the said recovery. In regard to the recovery, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that there is contradiction in the statement of the mother and this witness of recovery. He argued that according to the mother, the recovery was made from Charbagh and from the statement of this witness, she was recovered from Saadatganj bus stand but he admitted that the mother was not witness of recovery and her statement cannot be said to be material in this regard so as to discredit the testimony of other two witnesses who had stated that Km. Tara was recovered from Saadatganj bus stand as mentioned in the recovery memo Ext. Ka-3, prepared at the time of recovery. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that Ram Singh (PW 7) is pocket witness of the police and has given statements in many cases but this fact has not proved as no defence evidence was filed to substantiate this contention. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any discrepancy in the statement of Ram Singh (PW 7) or any contradiction in regard to the recovery from the statement of Ram Singh (PW 7) and SI Gaurishanker (PW 6 ). 16. As regards the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the other persons who also faced trial alongwith the appellant were acquitted on the same evidence is concerned, it would be sufficient to say that learned trial Court gave them benefit of doubt. Merely, because others were given the benefit of doubt, it cannot be said that appellant is also entitled to the acquittal on the strength of evidence on record. The case against him, is fully proved. 17. Merely, because others were given the benefit of doubt, it cannot be said that appellant is also entitled to the acquittal on the strength of evidence on record. The case against him, is fully proved. 17. The delay in FIR has been properly explained by Sabira (PW 1) who had given the details to show that right from beginning she made serious efforts to lodge the report but because of collusion of the police with the appellant, it could not be lodged at the earliest. The learned trial Court found that the delay in loading of the FIR has been properly explained. 18. Km. Tara was kidnapped on 12-8-1986 and she was recovered on 22-8-1986 i. e. after about ten days. She was examined by the doctor also on 22-8-1986. Km. Tara stayed at appellants house for about ten days and on the basis of internal examination, doctor stated that it was not possible to give exact opinion regarding rape. Doctor had given her age as 15-16 years at the time of recovery. The same was not challenged and even if two years margin, as argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is given, she in any case, was minor at the time of incident. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 19. After going though the evidence on record and considering the arguments as advanced before the Court, I find that the learned trial Court rightly found that charges against the appellant were proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal which deserves to be dismissed. 20. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentences awarded by the learned trial Court. Appeal dismissed. .