Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This criminal appeal, under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) camp Rajgarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 9/2004 (7/2004) State vs. Mangilal, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced as under:-Under Section 363, IPC Two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. Under Section 366, IPC Three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. Under Section 376/511, IPC Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 012.2003 at about 2:30 PM, PW. 2 Kashmir Singh, submitted a written report in the Police Station, Taranagar stating, inter-alia, therein that on 012.2003 his daughter Suman, aged 15 years, had gone to his elder brother’s house at about 7 PM in the evening, whose house was near to his house but when Suman did not turn upto 11 PM in the night, he went to the house of his brother Ramlal and there on making inquiry it was revealed that his daughter Suman did not come to his house, as such he alongwith his brother Ramlal made search of her in the village. The villagers, Ganpat Ram and Mani Ram told that between 7.30 to 8 PM Suman was seen with Mangilal Master and was going towards the Bank. It was also stated in the report that Mangilal accused was teacher in the Primary School and he had taken the girl somewhere either in order to marry with her or for selling. 3. On the basis of above report Ex.P/1, Case No. 289/2003 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested, statements of the witnesses were recorded and Suman was recovered. Prosecutrix Suman was medically examined and the seized material was sent to FSL. 4. 3. On the basis of above report Ex.P/1, Case No. 289/2003 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested, statements of the witnesses were recorded and Suman was recovered. Prosecutrix Suman was medically examined and the seized material was sent to FSL. 4. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the Court and it came up for trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Churu, who after hearing both side on charge, framed charge against the accused appellant under Sections 363, 366 & 376, IPC on 09.02.2004. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. In the statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC, accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He also stated that Suman had left the house of her parents at her own and went somewhere else and he never assured Suman to give her gold and silver ornaments or clothes etc. Nobody has been examined in defence. 6. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated hereinabove. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The contention of learned Counsel has been that FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay. It has also been contended that there are material contradictions in the prosecution case and in absence of reliable evidence, it cannot be said that prosecutrix was minor. It has also been submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC, the prosecutrix did not say anything about rape committed on her. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a minor girl, who was below 18 years of age was kidnapped and taken away from the lawful custody of her guardians, therefore, offence under Sections 363, 366, IPC stands proved against the accused-appellant. It has also been submitted that by the medical evidence, it has been established that she was subjected to rape. He further submitted that police persons asked the prosecutrix not to say about rape before the Magistrate but she stated during the trial the facts in her statement about rape committed with her, which has been corroborated by the medical evidence. He further submitted that police persons asked the prosecutrix not to say about rape before the Magistrate but she stated during the trial the facts in her statement about rape committed with her, which has been corroborated by the medical evidence. He further submitted that the trial Court has found the prosecutrix minor, therefore, assuming even if her consent was obtained, it was of no consequence as by the prosecution evidence, it has been established that accused had taken away the girl with him and she remained with him for nearly 10 days and during this period the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. In the last, it has been submitted that the accused, who was a teacher in a Primary School, has committed such a heinous offence which is crime against society, therefore, he deserves no sympathy and the trial Court has correctly recorded the guilt of the accused. 10. Before appreciating the evidence, it shall be useful to discuss here the law laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts in relation to delay in lodging of FIR and on appreciation of evidence. 11. In Narayan Iranna Potkanthi vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 CrLJ 1752 , the Honble Apex Court, while examining the matter on delay, has observed as under :- “It was contended in the context of the first information report that, though the incident had taken place on 05.01.1990, the incident was reported at the police station only on 06.01.1990 and that too, as late as at about 3.30 P.M. True it is that there was some delay in lodging the first information report, but, this delay has been properly explained, both by Gangabai and Gangadhar (PW. 1). PW. 5, Gangabai was an illiterate woman and it appears from her evidence that on account of the shock sustained by her due to the sexual violence meted out to her child, she had broken in tears immediately. One can imagine how she must have taken some time to take some decision in the matter.” 12. In State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash (2002) 5 SCC 745 , it has been held that there should be proper explanation of inordinate delay. One can imagine how she must have taken some time to take some decision in the matter.” 12. In State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash (2002) 5 SCC 745 , it has been held that there should be proper explanation of inordinate delay. In that matter delay of 26 hours in lodging of first information report was fully explained by the prosecution and the Honble Apex Court observed as under :- “As regards the contention regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the real question is about the explanation for the delay. It is not at all unnautral for the family members to await the arrival of the elders in the family when an offence of this nature is committed, before taking a decision to lodge a report with the police. The reputation and prestige of the family and the career and life of a young child is involved in such cases.“ 13. In Harpal Singh and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 , the Honble Apex Court has observed that occurrence according to the prosecutrix took place on the night intervening 20/21.08.1972, the first information report was lodged on 31.08.1972, the complainant gave reasonable explanation for lodging it after ten days of the occurrence stating that as honour of the family was involved, its members had to decide whether to take the matter to the Court or not and found that it is not uncommon that such considerations delay action on the part of the near relations of a young girl, who is raped. 14. In Kali Charan vs. The State (Delhi Admn.), 1995 CrLJ 663 , the Honble Delhi High Court while considering the matter of delay has observed as under : “It is a matter of common experience that in our country, people are quite hesitant in reporting such offences to the police. In majority of cases primarily to save honour of the family and the prosecutrix and in small number of cases as and when these cases are reported to the police, they do so after considerable hesitation and long deliberations. In this view of the matter, often, there is delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution version cannot be thrown out only on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report, otherwise in some cases it may lead to serious miscarriage of justice.” 15. In this view of the matter, often, there is delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution version cannot be thrown out only on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report, otherwise in some cases it may lead to serious miscarriage of justice.” 15. It shall be worthwhile to refer here some of the decisions of the Hon’ble Court in such matters in relation to appreciation of evidence. 16. In the case of Narayan Iranna Potkanthi (supra), it has been observed by the Bombay High Court while appreciating the evidence of a child witness as under : “The reading of her deposition, particularly the Marathi version thereof makes one to believe that she was able to narrate in a consistent manner, how she was handled or mishandled on that day and how she reacted to the occurrence in question. We have, therefore, no reason to entertain doubt of intellectual capacity of the witness nor have any reason to suppose that the girl was narrating something that was not true or, that she was induced or influenced to tell before the Court something which was untrue.” 17. In Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Naval Dubey & Anr. 1992 (3) SCC 204 , the Honble Supreme Court has observed that there are series of decisions to the effect that even in cases wherein there is lack of oral corroboration to that of a prosecutrix, a conviction can be safely recorded, provided the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the `probabilities factor does not render it unworthy of credence, and that as a general rule, corroboration cannot be insisted upon, except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. The Court observed in Para Nos. 34 and 35 of Judgment as under,- “. . Merely because the inexperienced medical officer has opined that it was an attempt to commit rape, probably on the ground that there was no sign of complete penetration . . . A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. . . A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own Judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the experts opinion because once the experts opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court. In Para No. 37, the Court observed,-“We feel that it would be quite appropriate, in this context, to reproduce the opinion expressed by Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty-first Edition) at page 369 which reads thus :- “Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and ruputre of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a case the medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is a crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not, is a legal conclusion not a medical one.” At page 226 of the said decision, the Court observed,-“Before parting with the Judgment , with deep concern, we may point out that though all sexual assaults on female children are not reported and do not come to light yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. This is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes, who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls. Therefore, such offenders, who are menace to the civilized society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms.” 18. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat 1983 (3) SCC 217 , the Honble Supreme Court in relation to appreciation of the evidence observed as under :- .(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. .(2) Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. .(3) Thepowers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one persons mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. .(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder. .(5) Inregard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess-work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. .(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. .(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. .(7) A witness though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Courts atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by Counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. Discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important `probabilities factor echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses. It is now time to tackle the pivotal issue as regards the need for insisting on corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix in sex offence. This Court, in Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan, has declared that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The utterance of the Court in Rameshwar may be replayed, across the time-gap of three decades which have whistled past, in the inimitable voice of Vivian Bose, J., who spoke for the Court : The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge . . . The only rule of law is that, this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. . . The only rule of law is that, this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand.” 19. In State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash 2002 (5) SCC 745 , it has been observed that the evidence of child is required to be evaluated carefully as the child may be swayed by what others may tell him or her, as the child is an easy prey to tutoring and wisdom requires that the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it relied on. The Honble Apex Court further observed as under:- “Child rape cases are cases of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of sexual pleasure. There cannot be anything more obscene than this. It is a crime against humanity. Many such cases are not even brought to the light because of the social stigma attached thereto. According to some surveys, there has been a steep rise in child rape cases. Children need special care and protection. In such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. Their physical and mental immobility call for such protection. Children are the natural resource of our country. They are the countrys future. Hope of tomorrow rests on them. In our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position and one of the modes of her exploitation is rape besides other modes of sexual abuse. These factors point towards a different approach required to be adopted. The overturning of a well-considered and well-analysed Judgment of the trial Court on grounds like non-examination of other witnesses, when the case against the respondent otherwise stood established beyond any reasonable doubt was not called for. The minor contradiction of recovery of one or two underwears was wholly insignificant." 20. In Harpal Singh and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 , the Honble Apex Court has observed as under :-“Mr. The minor contradiction of recovery of one or two underwears was wholly insignificant." 20. In Harpal Singh and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 , the Honble Apex Court has observed as under :-“Mr. Hardy laid emphasis on the circumstances that no injury was detected on the private parts of the girl and that she was found to have been used to sexual intercourse and argued that it was a case of sexual intercourse by consent. This argument will be of no avail to the appellants if once it is proved that the girl was below 16 years of age, because in that case the question of consent becomes wholly irrelevant.” 21. In Visveswaran vs. State, 2003 CrLJ 2548 , the Honble Supreme Court has observed: “. . .the cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity, Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on the charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the Courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by Courts while evaluating evidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved.” 22. In Dilip & Anr. vs. State of M.P. 2002 WLC Cr. 224 (SC), the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court have been as under:-“The law is well settled that prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. In State of H.P. vs. Gian Chand, 2001 (6) SCC 71 , on a review of decisions of this Court, it was held that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination, etc. if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. This Court further held: “If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason, the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.. . .” 23. In Madan Gopal Kaddar vs. Naval Dubey, 1992 (3) SCC 204 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lack of oral corroboration to that of a prosecutrix does not come in the way of a safe conviction being recorded provided the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the ‘probabilities of factor’ does not render it unworthy of credence, and that as a general rule, corroboration cannot be insisted upon, except from the medical evidence, where having regarding to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. 24. A perusal of above authoritative pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts shows that delay in lodging first information report in such matters is not fatal but it requires proper explanation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai (supra) has laid guidelines and it has also been almost settled that statement of prosecutrix can be relied only on the basis of single testimony of the prosecutrix and conviction can be passed provided it inspires confidence. Keeping in view, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the High Courts, now I propose to examine the evidence adduced in the case. 25. PW. 1 is prosecutrix Suman. Keeping in view, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the High Courts, now I propose to examine the evidence adduced in the case. 25. PW. 1 is prosecutrix Suman. She has stated in her statement that she knew the accused well. She stated that on the day of incident accused gave her hint while she was going to her uncle’s house and took her away with him on a false assurance that he will get her good clothes and gold and silver ornaments. She has also stated that she was first taken in a field, where accused after putting off his dress and removing her clothes committed rape on her forcibly. She has further stated that accused took her to Bikaner, Jodhpur and other places and they stayed in Dharamshala etc. and at Bikaner accused committed rape 2-3 times. She has proved her signatures on recovery memo and Fard of Supardagi Ex.P/5. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she gave statement to the Magistrate and that the names of places mentioned by her were suggested by the Advocate. She has also stated that she is an illiterate girl not of 18 years age and on the day of incident her mother had sent her at her uncle’s house. She has further stated that for couple of months she had been to school. She has also stated that she was examined by a doctor. In re-examination, she has stated that for 3 to 4 months she has studied in school and also stated that her uncle had taken her to the Police Station, Hanumangarh, where a report was lodged. In relation to Ex.D/2, the statement recorded by the Magistrate, she has stated that police had told her not to speak about rape, therefore, she stated that accused took her with him. .26. PW. 2, Kashmir Singh is father of the prosecutrix. He has stated, what has been stated by prosecutrix PW. 1. He stated that on the day of incident when Suman did not return from her uncle’s house, he went there and made inquiries and found that she did not go there and then he alongwith his brother made search of her in the village and it was revealed on inquriry that accused in the evening at about 7.30 or 8 was seen going towards the bank’s side with Suman. It has also been stated that Suman subsequently told him that she was raped by accused in Hanumangarh and Bikaner. He has produced Ex.P/3, a certificate regarding her age to the police on their demand. In the cross-examination, he has stated that Suman was born when he was 19 years of age. The age of the witness at the time of recording his statement was 35 years. In the last line of his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that there was love affair between accused and Suman and the mother of Suman, who knew about it, sent Suman with accused Mangilal willingly and due to some .misconception a false case was lodged. 27. PW. 3 is Mani Ram. He has stated that on the day of incident, in the way he met with Ganpat and both of them saw the accused going with Suman and he informed this fact to the father of Suman. 28. PW. 4 Ramlal is the brother of PW. 2 Kashmir Singh. He has stated that on the day of incident his younger brother had come to his house and asked about Suman, on which he replied that she had not come there and then both of them made search of Suman. 29. PW. 8 is Dr. Sarita Gupta. She has stated that on 12.2003 while she was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Rajgarh, on police requisition, she medically examined Kumari Suman in presence of her parents after obtaining written consent. She has also stated that there were spots on the clothes worn by Suman. She found the hymen of prosecutrix ruptured. The vagina permitted entry of two fingers. She has further stated that sample of blood was taken and two slides were also prepared. Salwar of Suman was also taken and was handed over to the SHO and sealed. She has stated that in her opinion Suman was not virgin. She has proved the medical examination report Ex.P/15 in relation to Suman. In the cross examination, in the last line she has stated that hymen of prosecutrix was old ruptured and it appeared that 2-3 times intercourse with the prosecutrix had taken place. 30. PW. 6 is Jinkuram, who has conducted investigation. He has sated that he was the SHO of Police Station, Taranagar on 012.2003. In the cross examination, in the last line she has stated that hymen of prosecutrix was old ruptured and it appeared that 2-3 times intercourse with the prosecutrix had taken place. 30. PW. 6 is Jinkuram, who has conducted investigation. He has sated that he was the SHO of Police Station, Taranagar on 012.2003. He has also stated that Kashmir Singh submitted a written report Ex.P/1 and on that basis FIR Ex.P/2 was chalked out, prosecutrix was recovered and the memo Ex.P/4 in this behalf was prepared and ultimately she was handed over to the parents through Memo Ex.P/5. He has further stated that during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded by him and Ex.P/3 certificate regarding the age of prosecutrix was procured. In the cross examination, he has stated that he obtained the school certificate but did not obtain certificate regarding age from doctor. He denied the suggestion that before the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by Magistrate, he gave threat to her. He has also denied the suggestion that during investigation it revealed that accused and Suman were having love affairs and the mother of the prosecutrix willingly sent the prosecutrix with the accused. 8.31. The other evidence is in relation to sending the samples to the FSL. PW. 5, Dr. Jay Narain Khatri has examined the accused in relation to his capability to perform the act of sexual intercourse and found him potent. He has stated that the underwear of accused Mangilal was seized and sealed for examination by the FSL. In the cross examination, he has stated that the underwear of a married man, after coition, may have spots of semen. .32. It has been the contention of the learned Counsel that accused never took away the prosecutrix with him and even if she was taken then also she being major had accompanied the accused at her own will. It has also been submitted that for proving the age of the prosecutrix sufficient evidence is not available on record. .32. It has been the contention of the learned Counsel that accused never took away the prosecutrix with him and even if she was taken then also she being major had accompanied the accused at her own will. It has also been submitted that for proving the age of the prosecutrix sufficient evidence is not available on record. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the statement of prosecutorix she has stated her age to be below 16 years and the school certificate states the age of prosecutrix below 16 years on the date of incident, therefore, even if it is presumed that she had gone with accused at her own will then also this will not exonerate the accused of the charge framed against him. .33. I have considered the submissions made before me. 9.34. It is to be seen that on behalf of accused, a suggestion was made to PW. 2 Kashmir Singh, father of the prosecutrix in the cross-examination that there was love affair between accused and Suman and the prosecutrix was sent with the accused by the mother happily. PW. 6 Jinku Ram, the Investigating Officer, has been put with the same suggestion as it appears from the last line of his cross examination. So also PW. 11, Ram Singh was put suggestion with regard to love affair of the accused with prosecutrix. This establishes that the prosecutrix was in the company of accused for couple of days. According to written report Ex.P.1, she was taken by the accused on 012.2003 and was found on 12.2003 and during that period, as per the statement of prosecutrix PW. 1 Suman herself , she was taken to different places. It is correct that the relevant record of the accused staying at different places alongwith prosecutrix has not been produced in the Court but that will not make any diffence for the reason that the suggestion put to the witnesses is clearly of the nature that she was taken by the accused at different places. As per the suggestion, there was love affair between accused and the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has denied that there was any love affair between her and the accused. As per the suggestion, there was love affair between accused and the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has denied that there was any love affair between her and the accused. The statement of the prosecutrix read with other witnesses namely Kashmir Singh, father of the prosecutrix, and other witnesses of the prosecution and also the Investigating Officer, clearly indicates that the defence put to the witnesses by the accused has not been established with regard to love affairs. No such material has come on record. 35. Now, the another aspect which requires consideration is as to what was the age of the prosecutrix and whether on the date of incident she was minor, and if so, what is its effect? 36. Prosecutrix, PW. 1 Suman has stated her age to be 14 years, the written report Ex.P/1 submit