Judgment C.M.Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 24.4.2003 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua passed in Sessions Trial No. 146/2000/117/2002 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Ss. 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.l.for 10 years under each of the two counts and which sentence are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution commenced with the written report of the informant dated 2.6.1999 as filed before the officer-in-charge, Mohania P.S. on 3.6.1999 wherein the informant Rajdulari Devi (P.W. 3), resident of village Mohammadpur stated that she along with her three daughters was living as a tenant in the house of Bharat Mali, situated in station road, Mohania and that she was maintaining her daughters by earning wages as daily labourer and that her husband was living at her village home. She further stated that on 5.5.1999 (which date has been over written in the written report with the date 25.4.1999) while she had gone out for earning her daily wages and her daughters were in the house the appellant Awadhesh Ram came there and he enticed away her daughter Pratima Kumari aged 14 years for the purpose of marrying her and took her to his village. She (informant) learnt about it from her other daughters who also disclosed that the appellant had talked Pratima Kumari in seclusion. She further alleged that on the next day i.e. 6.5.1999 she started searching her daughter but in the meantime she suffered of sun-stroke as a result of which, she remained ailing for a week and thereafter, when she recovered from the ailment, she again started searching her daughter and in course of that she learnt that the appellant had enticed her daughter and he was keeping her at his house. She further stated that on 2.6.1999 she went to the house of the appellant, she found her daughter there. Seeing her, the daughter started weeping and she became ready to go with her (informant). But in the meantime some villagers informed the appellant who came there and abused her and also fell upon to assault her as a results of which, she left that place and came to the Police Station where she gave her written report. Seeing her, the daughter started weeping and she became ready to go with her (informant). But in the meantime some villagers informed the appellant who came there and abused her and also fell upon to assault her as a results of which, she left that place and came to the Police Station where she gave her written report. She stated in the written report that she had not informed the matter earlier to the police due to fear of her social prestige being maligned. On the basis of written report (Ext. 1) F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted and thereafter, the appellant was put on trial wherein he has been convicted and sentenced as above. 3. As many as six witnesses were examined by prosecution. The appellant also examined three defence witnesses. 4. P.W. 2 Pratima Kumari is the victim herself. 5. P.W. 3 Rajdulari Devi is the informant. 6. P.W. 1 Rinku Kumari is the informants daughter who has come to support the case of prosecution. 7. P.W. 4 Bharat Mali is the landlord of the informant but he has turned hostile saying that he knew nothing about the occurrence and on his attention being drawn towards his previous police statement he denied to have given any statement before police supporting the case of prosecution. 8. P.W. 5 Smt. Mangla Sinha is the doctor who had examined the victim. 9. P.W. 6 Raj Narayan Singh is the investigating officer. 10. D.W. 1 Ramawtar Parjapati has stated about the marriage of the victim with the appellant. 11. D.W. 2 Sharda Devi and D.W. 3 Ram Payare Ram have deposed about the affidavit dated 28.4.1999 with the averment of marriage between the appellant and the victim saying that there had been an agreement of marriage. 12. The informant (P.W. 3) deposed that while she returned after her work her daughter Rinku Kumari disclosed that Awadesh Ram (appellant) had come there and he had talked another daughter Pratima Kumar (victim) and thereafter, he took her away to Bazar. Knowing this, she (informant) began to search her daughter but she could not find her. In the next morning she went to the appellants village Mansoorpur where she was unable to find out her daughter, hence, she returned and thereafter, she kept on search for eight days. Knowing this, she (informant) began to search her daughter but she could not find her. In the next morning she went to the appellants village Mansoorpur where she was unable to find out her daughter, hence, she returned and thereafter, she kept on search for eight days. After eight days when she went to appellants house she found Pratima (victim) there and on her being asked she (victim) became ready to go with her and she also went with her to some distance but in the meantime villagers came there and caught Pratima and took her back with them. Thereafter, she (informant) came to the Police Station and gave out her written report. In her cross-examination she has stated that she knew the appellant from before the occurrence because the appellant used to come with his friend who was living as a tenant in the house of Bharat Mali. She also stated that the appellant was her caste men. At para-9 of her evidence she said that she had no knowledge that her daughter (victim) and the appellant had solemnized Court marriage. She also denied that she had voluntarily filed a compromise in the case but subsequently on the insistence of others she resiled from the compromise. Thus the informant supports her written report. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there has been a delay of more than 20 days in the filing of written report but any explanation for the delay is not being offered by the informant in her evidence. 13. P.W. 2 Pratima Kumari, who is the victim herself deposed that while her mother had gone out for earning wages and she, alongwith her sisters was in the house, the appellant came there and asked her to accompany him to market whereupon, accompanying him she went with the appellant. She further alleged that on the pretext of taking her to market, the appellant brought her to his village where he kept her for eight days and during that period the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. She also deposed that her mother and sister came to the appellants house and wanted to take her with them but the appellant did not allow and that the appellants father assaulted them. She also deposed that her mother and sister came to the appellants house and wanted to take her with them but the appellant did not allow and that the appellants father assaulted them. At para-3 of her cross-examination she stated that prior to the occurrence the appellant used to come to his friend Ram Awatar who was her neighbour running a grocery shop in the same building. She further deposed that when the appellant had asked her to go to market she became ready for it and firstly she went Stuargani market and from there, boarding a bus went to the appellants village. At para-4 she stated that there were 5-6 members including appellants mother in appellants family. She denied that she had stated before police that she had fallen in love with the appellant and that she had voluntarily left her house with the appellant and both had remained at Sayed Raja station for the whole night and then both had gone to Chandauli where they solemnized Court marriage and thereafter, they started living at Mansoorpur (appellants village) as couple. At para-6 of her cross-examination she admitted that she lived at Mansoorpur for 10-12 days and during that period the relationship as wife and husband was established with the appellant but forcibly. Thus, the victim says that on being asked by the appellant she had gone away with the appellant who brought her to his village and kept her there. She also says that relationship of wife and husband was established between them but under force. She has denied that she had given any statement before police that she was in love with the appellant and that she had voluntarily left the house with the appellant and solemnized Court marriage with the appellant. 14. P.W. 1 Rinku Kumari is the victims daughter who deposed that while her mother had gone away the appellant had come to her house and had talked with her (victim) and then took her away with him. She also stated that on the next day she along with her mother had gone to the appellants house and asked as to why he brought her sister there and she tried to bring her sister back but the appellant did not allow for it hence victims mother filed a complaint before police. 15. She also stated that on the next day she along with her mother had gone to the appellants house and asked as to why he brought her sister there and she tried to bring her sister back but the appellant did not allow for it hence victims mother filed a complaint before police. 15. P.W. 5, the doctor Mangala Sinha depsoed that on examination she did not find any external injury on the body including private part of the victim and she found one old torn heal hymen and on pathological examination no spermatoza dead or alive was found. The doctor opined that the victim was aged approximately 18 years and it was difficult to say whether recent sexual contact had occurred or not. She proved the medical examination as Ext. 2. In her cross-examination she stated that in her opinion the victim was not less than 18 years of age. Thus, according to the medical findings the age of the victim was not below 18 years and thus she was not a minor but a major one. 16. P.W. 6 Raj Narayan Singh, the investigating officer testified that on 3.6.1999 he had received the informants written report and then he had lodged F.I.R. and commenced investigation. He has stated to have visited the informants house and has given detailed of it. He also deposed that he arrived the victims house and sent her for medical examination. At para-6 of his cross-examination he deposed that the victim had been enticed away on 25.4.1999. He also learnt that the informant had been deserted by her husband who had married another lady and the informant was living with her daughters earning her livelihood from daily wages. In cross-examination at para-6 the I.O. deposed that the victim had stated before him that she was in love with the appellant and that she had performed a Court marriage with him at Chandauli. He also deposed that the appellant had also stated before him that he had married the victim Pratima Kumari. Thus, the victim had stated before the I.O. during investigation that she was in love with appellant and she had performed a Court marriage with him at Chandauli. The factum of Court marriage is pointed out by the appellants counsel on the basis of affidavit dated 28.4.1999 (Exts. Thus, the victim had stated before the I.O. during investigation that she was in love with appellant and she had performed a Court marriage with him at Chandauli. The factum of Court marriage is pointed out by the appellants counsel on the basis of affidavit dated 28.4.1999 (Exts. A and A/1) wherein the appellant and the victim have put their signature and L.T.I. with this averment that they had performed a Court marriage. 17. D.W. 1 Ram Awatar Prajapati deposed that the informant had talked him about marriage of her elder daughter Pratima Kumari (victim) and that marriage of the victim was arranged with the appellant but the informant had said that she had no money for expenses in the marriage hence she had asked them for performing a Court marriage and that thereafter the victim had performed a Court marriage with the appellant. She further deposed after marriage the informant began to demand money and said to the appellant to leave his house and came to live with her hence a dispute arose between them and the informant had threatened to lodge a case. This witness has also deposed that subsequently the informant wanted to marry the victim to another boy. 18. D.Ws. 2 and 3 have stated on the basis of the affidavit that there had been an agreement of marriage of appellant and the victim. 19. On consideration of the evidence of the victim it is found that she states that on the pretext of taking her to Bazar she was taken to appellants house where appellant kept her for 8 days and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. This is also found that during that period a relationship of wife and husband was established though forcibly. The victim has denied that she has voluntarily left her house with the appellant and had performed Court marriage with him. On her attention being drawn towards her previous police statement the victim refused to have given such statement before the I.O., but the I.O. has come and he has proved that during investigation the victim had stated before him that she was in love with the appellant and that she had performed a Court marriage with him. 20. On her attention being drawn towards her previous police statement the victim refused to have given such statement before the I.O., but the I.O. has come and he has proved that during investigation the victim had stated before him that she was in love with the appellant and that she had performed a Court marriage with him. 20. During hearing the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact the appellant being aged below 25 years at the time of occurrence and the victim being 18 years at that time both were being boy and girl of marriageable age were having love affairs between them and married also but due to some subsequent disputes raised by the victims mother a case was lodged. In support of the submission the learned counsel referred to earlier statement of the victim as given before the I.O. that she was in love with the appellant and she had voluntarily married him. Learned counsel also referred to some other aspects of the case pointing out that in this case a compromise petition was earlier filed before learned C.J.M. and in that compromise petition it was stated that the appellant and the victim were of the same caste and they had voluntarily married. The lamed A.P.P. replied that the compromise is not of much help to the defence inasmuch as the victim has deposed in her evidence that the compromise had been obtained under threats. In this context, the learned defence counsel referred to the bail order dated 29.6.1999 under B.P. No. 518 of 99 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby bail was granted to the appellant and while granting the bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded that the victim girl Mamta Devi and her mother Rajdulari Devi (informant) both were present before the learned judge and they had accepted the marriage of Mamta Devi with the appellant and relying on her such statement bail was granted to the appellant. The learned counsel argued that the victim and the appellant had personally appeared before the learned Sessions Judge at the earlier stage during investigation and they had admitted that the appellant and the victim had performed a Court marriage. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that in this case the victim is aged 18 years and thus she is not a minor. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that in this case the victim is aged 18 years and thus she is not a minor. In this context, the learned counsel argued that Sec. 366A of the Indian Penal Code is applicable in case the inducement or enticing away relates to a minor girl. In the instant case, though the informant claims that her daughter (victim) was aged 14 years but in support of it there is nothing on record whereas the medical evidence as adduced after medical examination of the victim girl mentions that the victim was aged not below 18 years. In view of the findings arrived at upon medical examination, I find that the victim was aged not below 18 years at the time of occurrence therefore, in such view of the matters Sec. 366-A of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. But in such circumstances Sec. 366 would be applicable which relates to act of the enticing a woman to compel her to marriage. Therefore, in view of above this case would come under the purview u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. Considering entire evidence and the facts and circumstances. I find that the appellant took the victim with him on the pretext of taking her to market but he took her his house for marriage and established sexual intercourse with her, therefore the conviction u/s. 366-A of the Indian Penal Code as pronounced by the Trial Court is converted into a conviction u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code but the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. 23. So far the quantum of sentence is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out many facts of the case and it was argued that the victim girl had herself given statement before the I.O. during investigation that she was in love with the appellant and she had performed Court marriage with him. It was also submitted that according to the case of prosecution itself the appellant had kept the victim girl with him as his wife and that the victim has also admitted that the relationship between them as wife and husband was established though under force. It was also submitted that according to the case of prosecution itself the appellant had kept the victim girl with him as his wife and that the victim has also admitted that the relationship between them as wife and husband was established though under force. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was a boy below 25 years and the victim was also as major girl aged 18 years and both being young ones of marriageable age were having love affairs. It was also submitted that the appellant is in custody since 24.4.2003 and thus he has remained in custody for a period of 4 years and 5 months. 24. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case I feel that a sentence of period already undergone under each of the two counts namely Ss. 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code will meet the ends of justice. Therefore the sentence as awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. Thus the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence as indicated above. 25. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.