JUDGMENT Kiran Anand Lall, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated November 23/26, 1990 convicting the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him as under :- Offence Sentence Fine 1. 363 Indian Penal Code R.I. for two years Rs. 500/- 2. 366 Indian Penal Code R.I. for three years Rs. 500/- ID RI six months 3. 376 Indian Penal Code R.I. for seven years Rs. 1000/- ID RI six months 2. The prosecution case is that on 19.5.1989, Des Raj, father of Meena Kumari prosecutrix, lodged report Ex. PR with the police, stating therein that his family, consisting of two sons and five daughters, was living at Ismailabad, while he was posted as Adda Conductor at Bus Stand, Chandigarh. Out of his seven children, Meena prosecutrix, aged 13/13-1/2, was younger to his other two daughters, Babita and Asha. She was a student of 8th Standard of Government High School. On 17.5.1989, his brother Balwant came to him at Chandigarh and informed that his (of Des Raj) daughter, Meena, had been enticed away by the appellant who runs a tailors shop under the name and style of Bombay Tailor, on that day, at about 10.00 A.M., during recess hours of the school. On this, he along with his brother reached Ismailabad and made enquiries from his family members, neighbours and relations. However, as he failed to get any information regarding the whereabouts of Meena, he, ultimately, went to the Police Station and lodged a report on the basis of which this case was registered vide FIR, Ex. PR. 3. On 26.5.1989, police recovered Meena from the custody of the appellant in the area of Shanti Nagar and arrested the latter. During investigation, it was found that the appellant had enticed away Meena on 17.5.1989, at 10.35 A.M., kept her at Pipli, Karnal and village Darar up to 26.5.1989, and committed rape on her, several times, during this period. The appellant and the prosecutrix were medically examined by Dr. S.C. Kalra PW1 and Dr. Mrs. Raksha Kalra PW2 respectively, at Primary Health Centre, Jhansa, on 26.5.1989. On 29.5.1989, the prosecutrix was radiologically examined also, by Dr. B. Ailabadi P.W. 3 in L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra. The appellant and the prosecutrix were medically examined by Dr. S.C. Kalra PW1 and Dr. Mrs. Raksha Kalra PW2 respectively, at Primary Health Centre, Jhansa, on 26.5.1989. On 29.5.1989, the prosecutrix was radiologically examined also, by Dr. B. Ailabadi P.W. 3 in L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra. Her birth certificate was obtained from the office of Registrar, Birth and Death (Chief Medical Officer), and so was the certificate about her date of birth from the records of Government High School, of which she was a student. As per the date of birth recorded in these certificates and also as per the report of her occification test, her age was found to be less than 16 years. 4. On completion of investigation, challan was put in against the appellant in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 5. The appellant having pleaded not guilty to the charges framed under Sections 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code against him, learned trial court recorded the statements of Dr. S.C. Kalra PW1, Dr. Raksha Kalra PW2, Dr. B. Ailabadi PW3, Shri Sanjeev Jindal, Judicial Magistrate PW4, Hakam Singh PW5, Brij Mohan PW6, Ms. Sheela Batra PW7, Mukesh Kumar PW8, Ms. Meena Rani alias Sushma prosecutrix PW9, Mamta Devi PW10, Balwant PW11, Gulshan Kumar PW12, Des Raj PW13 and SI Balbir Singh PW14. 6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the plea of appellant was that he was having love affair with Meena prosecutrix for the last two months. They wanted to get married but prosecutrixs parents were not agreeable. She had been writing love letters to him. On the night intervening 11/12.5.1989, she came to his shop, along with her grandmother who had agreed for their marriage. In the meantime, Balwant uncle of the prosecutrix, came, gave beating to the appellant, and took along the prosecutrix and her grand-mother (mother of Balwant). On the next day, the appellant was called in Police Station, Thaska, and was given beating by the Police at the asking of Balwant. Later on, he was apprehended from his shop on 25.5.1989. He was brought to the Police Station and this case was registered against him. No evidence was led in defence. 7. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in Para No. 1 above. 8. Later on, he was apprehended from his shop on 25.5.1989. He was brought to the Police Station and this case was registered against him. No evidence was led in defence. 7. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in Para No. 1 above. 8. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant came up in appeal to this Court. 9. Arguments addressed by both sides have been heard and the trial court record has been carefully gone into by me. 10. Though in the grounds of appeal, judgment of the trial Court was attacked on several counts, it was only on the point of the age of the prosecutrix that, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed this Court during the course of arguments, and while doing so, he invited my pointed attention to the following opening lines of Para No. 33 of the judgment of the learned trial Court : "As already held that the accused had committed rape on Ms. Meena Rani alias Seema (prosecutrix) with her consent but the prosecutrix was under 16 years on the date of alleged occurrence, so the question of consent becomes totally irrelevant." According to learned counsel for the appellant, once the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the consent of the prosecutrix, it should have acquitted him straightaway. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, contended that the consent given by the prosecutrix for the purpose was no consent in the eye of law as she was below the age of 16 years at the relevant time. He pointed out that the fact that she was below the age of 16 years at that time stood proved on the basis of not only oral but also documentary evidence consisting of school leaving certificate (Ex. PH), ossification test report (Ex. PE) and birth certificate (Ex. PG/1). Therefore, according to him, the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court deserves to be confirmed. 11. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did commit acts of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. But, according to him, the appellant did so with her consent, and infact he wanted to marry her as they were in love with each other. 12. 11. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did commit acts of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. But, according to him, the appellant did so with her consent, and infact he wanted to marry her as they were in love with each other. 12. In view of the said admitted position, it is the age of the prosecutrix which, alone, could determine the fate of the appellant. Learned trial Court has recorded a firm finding, on the basis of evidence led before it, that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. Let us, however, re-appraise the evidence on the point of the age of the prosecutrix. 13. It is an undisputed fact that the prosecutrix was a student of 8th class at the time of occurrence. Ordinarily, a child starts going to school at the age of 6 years. In the MLR, Ex. PD/1, her age stands recorded (as on 26.5.1989) as 13 years. Dr. Raksha Kalra, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar, who conducted her medico-legal examination, appeared as PW 2 and proved medico-legal report, Ex.PD/1. Significantly, no question disputing the age of the prosecutrix was put to her in cross-examination. Besides, as per the ossification test report Ex.PE, also, her age was found to be between 14-1/2 years to 15 years. Not only this, her school leaving certificate Ex.PH also reveals her age to be as 14 years and 10 months. This certificate was proved by P.W.6, Brij Mohan, Science Teacher of Government Senior Secondary School, Ismailabad. He stated that it was prepared by him according to the record maintained in the school. 14. As per the statement of prosecutrix (PW9), recorded on 19.1.1990, she was 14/15 years of age on the day she was examined in Court. In other words, she was aged about 13/14 years at the time of occurrence. According to her father, Des Raj (PW 13), at the time of occurrence, his eldest son was 21 years and the daughter (Babita), immediately younger to him, of 18 years. His third child, also a daughter, Asha Rani, was aged 16 years at the relevant time. The prosecutrix, who is younger to Asha Rani, was born in November 1974, according to him (PW13). His third child, also a daughter, Asha Rani, was aged 16 years at the relevant time. The prosecutrix, who is younger to Asha Rani, was born in November 1974, according to him (PW13). Thus, the testimony of the prosecutrix and her father also reveals her age to be about 14-1/2 years at the relevant time. 15. Learned Assistant Advocate General referred to the birth certificate, Ex.PG/1, also, in support of his case regarding the age of the prosecutrix being less than 16 years at the relevant time. The date of birth, recorded in this certificate, is 22.11.1974. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that this certificate had been wrongly taken into consideration by the trial Court as, in it, the name of the daughter born to Des Raj (PW13), is mentioned as Sushma, and not Meena, and therefore, it could not be connected with the birth of the prosecutrix. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the prosecutrix, while appearing in court as PW9, gave her name as Meena Rani alias Sushma-Seema. Her father, as PW13, clarified that when she was born, his father (grandfather of the prosecutrix) had named her as Sushma. As no challenge was thrown to this fact in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and her father, it cannot be said that the trial court had wrongly held the certificate to be as the one pertaining to the prosecutrix. In any case, even if, for arguments sake, this certificate is not taken into consideration, the other overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence, referred to above, was sufficient for the learned trial court, for holding the prosecutrix to be under 16 years of age at the relevant time. It may also be mentioned that the oral testimony of the prosecutrix (PW9) and also that of her father (PW13), doctor (PW2), and the school teacher (PW7), on the point of her age being less than 16 years was not challenged at all by suggesting that she was in fact more than 16 years of age at the relevant time. 16. No fault at all can thus be found with the finding of learned trial Court regarding the age of prosecutrix being less than 16 years at the relevant time and she being, thus, incapable of giving legal consent for the purpose of Sections 363, 366 or 376 Indian Penal Code. 16. No fault at all can thus be found with the finding of learned trial Court regarding the age of prosecutrix being less than 16 years at the relevant time and she being, thus, incapable of giving legal consent for the purpose of Sections 363, 366 or 376 Indian Penal Code. Finding of conviction of appellant recorded by he learned trial Court under all these three offence is, therefore, held to correct and is affirmed. 17. On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been in the dock for the last more than 14 years. He was aged 18 years when the trial started, and now he is of 32 years. He, therefore, prayed that as the appellant has been undergoing the ordeal of criminal litigation for the last so many years, he has already suffered a lot and this court may take a lenient view of the sentence by reducing the period of imprisonment awarded to him. Reliance in his connection was placed on 1999(1) RCR (Criminal) 562, Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana wherein sentence of 7 years imprisonment awarded in a rape case, was reduced to 4 years by the court as the occurrence had become 13 years old by the time appeal was decided by this Court. 18. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant has remained in the corridors of the criminal courts for the last more than 14 years, I feel that the ends of justice would be sufficiently served if the period of sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded under Section 376 Indian Penal Code is reduced from seven years to four years while keeping the fine intact, and it is ordered accordingly. The remaining sentences awarded under different charges shall remain intact. 19. Except reduction in the quantum of imprisonment as mentioned above, the appeal shall stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed.