Judgment Hari Shankar Prasad, J.— The appellant Rijwan Ansari has filed this Criminal appeal against the judgment dated 4-5-1999 and order of sentence dated 5-5-1999, passed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih held the appellant Rijwan Ansari guilty under Section 366, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for three months, five years R.I. under Section 376, IPC and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for three months and he was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years under Section 363, IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that one Bajrangi Lal Sinha lodged a written report with Pirtand P.S. stating therein, inter alia, that on 24-3-1997, his daughter Rekha Sinha aged about 16 years was sleeping in her house and in the morning when he woke up he did not find her and thereafter search was made and in that connection, S.D. Entry was also made on 25-3-1997 at Pirtand P.S. and search went on. He came to know that the appellant Rijwan Ansari has enticed away his daughter with an intention to marry her and enter into illicit intercourse with her. In course of search, this appellant Rijwan Ansari was caught in the shop of one Charku where he told that he has enticed Rakha Sinha away with an intention to marry her and kept her in the house of his sister, Nasiban Bibi at village Nawadth P.S. Dumri. On the basis of the written statement. Pirtand P.S. Case No. 14/97 was registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376/34, IPC and police after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant and Nasiban Bibi. The appellant denied having committed any offence and thereafter trial proceeded and ultimately, he was found guilty. 3. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses and after going through the materials and evidence brought on record-both oral and documentary from both the sides-held the appellant guilty under the aforesaid sections and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid while Nasiban Bibi was acquitted. 4. 3. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses and after going through the materials and evidence brought on record-both oral and documentary from both the sides-held the appellant guilty under the aforesaid sections and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid while Nasiban Bibi was acquitted. 4. Assailing the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim girl (PW 5) was consenting party and she was major and, therefore, no case either under Sections 363, 366 or 376, IPC is made out as sexual intercourse, even if it has been committed by the appellant, has been committed with the consent of the victim girl and as such, no case is made out. The learned counsel further pointed out that doctor (PW 4), who examined the victim girl, did not find any sign of rape and any injury either external or internal or on the private part of the victim girl. She did not find spermatozoa and, therefore, it cannot be said that rape was committed on her. Although, even if it is found that rape is committed, that was committed with the consent of the victim girl. The learned counsel further pointed out that there is no eye-witness except PW 5 who is victim girl and other witnesses are hear-say witnesses and are interested ones as independent witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that from the evidence available on record, it does not appear that any force was used for committing rape or anything whatsoever and as such, victim girl being a major one, no case under any of the aforesaid sections is made out and in such a situation, this appeal is fit to be allowed. 5. First of all, it should be exa-mined whether the victim girl namely Rekha Sinha. (PW 5) is a major or minor one. In this connection, evidence of PW 5 as well as evidence of doctor and other attending circumstances will be relevant. PW 4 is Dr. Sujata Jha. She has examined the victim girl and according to her, age of the victim girl was assessed at about 17 years and she has arrived at this finding on the basis of Radiological, Clinical and dental basis as well as physical appearance. PW 4 is Dr. Sujata Jha. She has examined the victim girl and according to her, age of the victim girl was assessed at about 17 years and she has arrived at this finding on the basis of Radiological, Clinical and dental basis as well as physical appearance. According to the doctor, who examined the victim girl (PW 5) on 3-4-1997, the victim girl was aged about 17 years. It means that victim girl may be above 17 years or may be below 17 years, but she cannot be aged 18 years because doctor has given specific finding that victim girl is aged about 17 years. 6. PW 5, on the other hand, has been examined in the Court on 30th June 1998 and on that day, she has given her age as 18 years and the Court has also assessed her age and found to be aged 18 years. This corroborates the fact that on 3-4-1997, more than year before she was aged 17 years and, therefore, she has rightly given her age as 18 years and the Court has also rightly assessed her age as 18 years. On the other hand, in her evidence in Para 19, she has stated that she has studied upto 9th class and her date of birth recorded in the school register is as 1-4-1980 whereas the alleged occu-rrence of kidnapping, commission of rape has taken place on 24-3-1997 and, therefore, from the calculation of her age from 1-4-1980 till 24-3-1997, it comes to about 17 years and, therefore, she is below 18 years and thus she is not a major one. On the other hand, though appellant has claimed her to be a major one but there is no material on record to show that victim girl is aged 18 years or more on the alleged date of occurrence as has been brought on record. Therefore, the victim girl is not a major rather she is minor girl, examined from all angles. 7. PW 5 in her evidence has stated that on 24-3-1997, the appellant came to her and said that he would get her marriage done and brought her to his house where he kept her for four to five days but he did not get her marriage performed. 7. PW 5 in her evidence has stated that on 24-3-1997, the appellant came to her and said that he would get her marriage done and brought her to his house where he kept her for four to five days but he did not get her marriage performed. She has also stated that he (appellant) established sexual relationship with her twice or thrice when she was in his house and also at other places she was taken. She has also deposed that she was rescued by the police and police had come with her uncle Naurangi Lal and this appellant and she was rescued from the house of the sister of the appellant. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that she was enticed away by the appellant and that is why she did not raise any alarm or made any protest. But from her evidence, it appears that she had gone with the appellant out of her free will be stayed there in the house of the sister of the appellant with her free will and even in the house of the appellant with her free will. 8. It is true that some witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and it is also true that from the perusal of evidence of PW 5, it is clear that she had gone with her free will with the appellant and stayed in his house and also in the house of his sister and did not make any protest. But as has been discussed in Para 5 and 6 above. PW 5 who is the victim girl has been found to be a minor below 18 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence and, therefore, her consent is immaterial and her consent as it appears from her evidence that was there but her being a minor girl, her consent will not absolve the appellant from the liability of the offences and her consent will not help the appellant in any way. On the other hand, from her evidence, it is clear that she was taken by the appellant, kept her in his house and also in the house of his sister and committed rape on her. In that view of the matter, prosecution has been able to prove the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, from her evidence, it is clear that she was taken by the appellant, kept her in his house and also in the house of his sister and committed rape on her. In that view of the matter, prosecution has been able to prove the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Court below. 9. Considering the nature of offence and evidence on record, I feel that the sentences do not require any interference. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.