Judgment :- The appellant is faced with conviction under Section 366 IPC and Section 376 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under the first count and rigorous imprisonment for another term of 7 years under the second count, with a direction that the sentence shall run concurrently. This is under challenge in this appeal. 2. PW2 is the victim. PW1 is her mother. The prosecution case was that PW2, daughter of PW1, a girl studying in 10th standard in Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Chengannur, was missing since 16.1.1995. She went along with her younger sister to the school. She did not come back. The enquires made by PW1 with the help of her brother, PW8 did not produce any result. She made a complaint to the Chengannur Police on 18.1.1995. Police recorder her statement. Ext.P1 is the statement so recorded. A crime was registered for girl missing by PW13, who registered the FIR, Ext.P1 (a). 3. While so, PW8, the brother of PW1 and uncle of PW2 along with his brother PW9 made enquires and it could be gathered from certain persons including an autorickshaw driver in Chengannur bus station that the accused along with PW2 had gone to Ernakulam or Chalakudy where the accused did have friends. Consequently both of them made enquiries in Ernakulam. They could not detect any thing. They proceed to Chalakkudy. They went to PW3. PW3 told them that accused and PW2 had been in their house. PW3 and PW4 are husband and wife. They also told that both of them had left their house. PW8 and PW9 rushed to the bus stand in Chalakkudy where, seeing them, PW2 rushed towards them and told that accused had abducted her to that place. PW8 and PW9 took both PW2 and the accused to Chengannur police station. On the way they informed PW1 as well. PW1 also accompanied them to the police station, Thereupon accused was arrested and PW2 was subjected to medical examination by PW5, who issued Ext.P4 certificate. Investigation was conducted. PW13 the Sub Inspector made Ext.P10 report adding the office under section 366 A, as according to the police PW2 was a minor and she had been induced to go from one place to another for seducing to illicit sexual intercourse. Further investigation revealed that she has been rapped by the accused. Investigation was conducted. PW13 the Sub Inspector made Ext.P10 report adding the office under section 366 A, as according to the police PW2 was a minor and she had been induced to go from one place to another for seducing to illicit sexual intercourse. Further investigation revealed that she has been rapped by the accused. Accordingly again a further report was failed in the Magistrate Court by PW13 adding the offence under section 376 IPC as well. 4. Accused faced trial. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 to PW16, documentary evidences Exts.P1 to P11(a), apart from defence evidence Exts.D1 to D3 contradictions in the statement of PW2 under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Appreciating the evidence on record, the court below found that the accused had committed offence under Section 366 and 376 IPC. He was accordingly convicted as aforesaid. 6. The contention of the appellant is that there was no cogent evidence to fasten conviction on him. There was consent from PW2. If at all there was any intercourse, she was not a minor girl. Her date of birth could not be proved before the court below. There was contradictory documents showing two different dates of birth. PW2 could not be believed because of the contradictions Exts. D1 to D3. PWs.1,8 and 9 are close relatives of PW2. Therefore they are interested witnesses. There is no independent evidence on record. So conviction is not sustainable. 7. It is submitted by the public prosecutor that even though Ext.P5 admission register proved through PW6 and PW16 and the birth register Ext.P11 proved through PW7 and PW15 showed different dated of birth, going by both the dates of birth, PW2 was a minor at the relevant date; namely 16.1.1995. Ext.P11 duly proved by PW7 and PW15 was more probable as birth is normally registered within a week of child birth. Ext.P5 proved by PW6 and PW15 is the admission register. It may not be the actual date of birth as normally parents would be giving date of birth in and around June for the purpose of admission to school. Even if that is the correct date of birth, PW2 was a minor. More over it has been conclusively proved in this case that she was only a student of 10th standard which itself indicates that she was only a minor. Even if that is the correct date of birth, PW2 was a minor. More over it has been conclusively proved in this case that she was only a student of 10th standard which itself indicates that she was only a minor. When a victim in a rape case is a minor, there arises no question of consent. A consent given for sexual intercourse on a minor cannot be taken as a valid consent. Ext.P4 certificate issued by PW5, the doctor who examined PW2 shows that PW2 had been subjected to sexual intercourse very recently and there was some minor injuries on her private parts. It also shows that her pubic hairs were matted with discharge. Thus sexual intercourse was also proved in this case. Merely because PWs.3 and 4 in whose house the intercourse has taken place had turned hostile, it cannot be stated that there was no rape. 8. As PW2 h ad been taken from Chengannur to Chalakudy with an intention to have illicit intercourse with her, necessarily the offence comes under Section 366 as PW2 had been kidnapped or abducted with an intention to have sexual intercourse with her in another place. 9. Even otherwise she being a minor there was inducement to go from one place to another, so that she be seduced to illicit intercourse. The offence will also come under section 366A as originally charged by the police. The ingredients of the offence under sections 366 or 366A and the sentence there of are almost the same except that the victim shall be a minor in respect of the latter offence. Even in the case of former among the offences, the victim can also be a minor. Therefore, the conviction shall in very respect to be sustained in this case, the public prosecutor submits. 10. PW1 is the mother of PW2, the victim in this case. She had categorically deposed that her daughter, PW2 was a student of 10th standard. PW6 and PW16 were two principals at different points of time in the Government Girls Vocational Higher Secondary School, Chengannur. They proved Ext.P5 admission register which shows that PW2 had been admitted in the school with the date of birth 17.5.1979. They also testify that she was at the relevant point of time a student of 10th standard. PW6 and PW16 were two principals at different points of time in the Government Girls Vocational Higher Secondary School, Chengannur. They proved Ext.P5 admission register which shows that PW2 had been admitted in the school with the date of birth 17.5.1979. They also testify that she was at the relevant point of time a student of 10th standard. PW7 is the Taluk Officer, in whose custody the relevant register of birth of Aranmula Panchayat was kept. PW15 is the concerned Panchayat Officer, who had issued original birth certificate. Ext.P11 is the birth certificate. The date of birth shown in the birth certificate as spoken to by them is 18.9.79. The report shall always be within a week of child birth. Going by either of the dates, PW2 was a minor at the relevant point of time. The date of birth shown in Ext.P6 is more probable. The date of birth given to school would be somewhere around the month of June as would be normally done, as observed by the court below. In either case, as PW2 was studying in 10th standard, it can reasonably be concluded that she was only a minor on 16.1.1995, the date of occurrence. 11. When PW2 was studying in a school in Chenganur as spoken to by PW6 and PW16 and her own mother PW1, she is a resident of Chengannur. PW8 and PW9 had found out her and the accused from Chalakudy when they were standing in Chalakudy bus stand. PW2 seeing them rushed towards them. At that time accused was also along with her as spoken to by PW8 and PW9. When they enquired earlier about the missing of PW2, they got the information from auto rickshaw drivers in Chengannur bus station that they had gone to Ernakulam or Chalakudy. Thus it is clear that accused had abducted PW2. a minor girl from Chengannur to Chalakkudy. 12. As per the prosecution case, accused had sexual intercourse with PW2 on two days consecutively while in the house of PWs.3 and 4. It is true that they did not support this prosecution case. But it is certain on the basis of Ext.P4 certificate issued by PW5, the doctor who examined PW2 that PW2 had undergone sexual intercourse recently then and that there were certain minor injuries on her private parts including redness in the vagina and pain on pubic area. It is true that they did not support this prosecution case. But it is certain on the basis of Ext.P4 certificate issued by PW5, the doctor who examined PW2 that PW2 had undergone sexual intercourse recently then and that there were certain minor injuries on her private parts including redness in the vagina and pain on pubic area. These were according to her sings of recent sexual intercourse. Her public hairs were also matted with discharge. Thus it can be safely concluded that there was sexual intercourse on PW2. 13. PW2 had very naturally deposed before the court below about the incident. She was not willing to go to chalakudy. In spite of that she was forced to go to Chalakudy. According to her she had been taken to the house of a friend of the accused where both of them shared a common bed in a room for two nights and there was sexual intercourse between them at the compulsion of the accused while in that house. In cross examination she also stated that the accused had promised to marry her. There is no reason to disbelieve PW2. 14. Even if there was no resistance from PW2 or even if PW2 had, as contended by the accused, consented for the sexual intercourse, she being a minor, as already found above, that sexual intercourse amounts to rape to come within the offence under Section 376. PW11, the doctor who examined the accused had certified in Ext.P8 that the accused was not incapable of having sexual intercourse. 15. Thus there is conclusive proof in this case that the accused had taken PW2 from one place to another for the purpose of sexual intercourse and had sexual intercourse with that minor girl, PW2 and thereby committed the offence both under Sections 366 and 366A IPC apart from the offence under Section 376 IPC. As he was tried for the offence under Sections 366 and 376 and has been convicted for the said offence, necessarily the conviction has to be sustained in this case. Appeal fails and is dismissed.