Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The appellant was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak for offences under Section 366 and 376, IPC. Vide judgment dated 27-11-1993, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforementioned offences. After hearing the convict on the question of sentence, the trial Court, vide order dated 30-11-1993, sentenced him to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 for the offence under Section 366, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,500.00 for offence under Section 376, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case was set up on the basis of a statement Ex. PH made by Daya Nand. In his statement, the informant stated that his daughter, who was a student of 8th standard, slept in the house on the night intervening 29/30-3-1992. Next morning, when he and other members of the family woke up, they saw that his daughter was not present on the cot. Search was made in the village and also in the surrounding areas but no clue could be found. The said search also took him to Jhajjar, where he learnt from one Parmod Kumar that he had seen his daughter with the accused at bus stand, Jhajjar, while boarding a bus on 30-3-1992 at about 7.00 a. m. Even the accused was found absent from his house. Both the accused and his daughter used to attend the same school. He suspected that his daughter had been allured and abducted by the accused with an intention to marry her. He also mentioned the identification features in respect of his daughter, who was aged only 14 years. On the basis of the aforementioned statement, which was recorded by ASI Jai Parkash on 1-4-1992 at 10.15 a. m., while being present on the Kosi Road, Jhajjar, FIR Ex. PH/1 came into existence in Police Station, Jhajjar the same morning at 10.30 a.m. 3. During the investigation, ASI Jai Prakash visited the spot and recorded the statements of the witnesses. PH/1 came into existence in Police Station, Jhajjar the same morning at 10.30 a.m. 3. During the investigation, ASI Jai Prakash visited the spot and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 8-4-1992, he along with SI Ram Sarup, SHO was present near bus stand, Jhajjar, where secret information was received by the SHO that the accused and the prosecutrix were present near booth No. 1 of the bus stand. Both of them proceeded towards the said place, from where the accused was apprehended and the prosecutrix recovered. At that very place, the prosecutrix made a statement that she was raped by the accused on the night intervening 29/30-3-1992 at a stadium in Jhajjar. The accused was thereafter, produced before the doctor for his medico-legal examination. 4. After the completion of the necessary investigation, challan of the case was prepared by SI Ram Sarup and submitted in the Court for trial. Following the commitment. Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for the offences under Sections 366 and 376, IPC on 20-8-1992 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Promila, Medical Officer. CMC, Jhajjar as PW1, who deposed regarding medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix conducted by her on 8-4-1992 at 12.50 p.m. She found as under: General Examination : B. P. 110/70. pulse 88 per minute, temperature normal, pupils normal, patient was well built, conscious, co-operative, age according to the built up was approximately 14 to 20 years. Menarche one year back. L. M. period 20th March, 1992. Secondary sex characters were showing pubic hair. Upper triangular border axillary hair normal, adult type. Breast were well developed. No mark of injury was seen on the body. Internal Examination : Labia majora well developed, covering labia minora fully. Thick discharge was coming out of the vagina. Hymen had old healed tags. The vagina was admitting two fingers easily. The vagina was closely approximated that no child birth or abortion had taken place. Uterus was anteverted, normal size. Patient was wearing same clothes which were not washed according to the patient. Swabs from posterior fornix and pubic hair were taken. 6. As per her finding, she found the prosecutrix to be indulging in habitual intercourse. However, the possibility of sexual intercourse in the instant case could not be ruled out within one week. Uterus was anteverted, normal size. Patient was wearing same clothes which were not washed according to the patient. Swabs from posterior fornix and pubic hair were taken. 6. As per her finding, she found the prosecutrix to be indulging in habitual intercourse. However, the possibility of sexual intercourse in the instant case could not be ruled out within one week. In her cross-examination doctor further stated that she noted the age of the prosecutrix as 15 years as it was so told by her. 7. Dr. Ramesh Chander PW2, after medico-legally examining the accused, found him to be sexually fit. Hawa Singh PW3 proved certificate Ex. PD issued by Chief Medical Officer, Rohtak, as per which no entry regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix could be found in the records. Krishan Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Jhajjar, while being examined as PW4, proved specimen handwritings Ex. PE/1 to PE/3 of the accused, which were taken on 8-4-1992 after the accused expressed his willingness. Scaled site plan Ex. PF, prepared at the pointing out of the prosecutrix was proved by C. P. Bhatnagar, Draftsman PW5. Chet Ram, Manager of Ram Sewa Samiti Dharmshala, Fatehabad appeared as PW6 and deposed on the basis of the original record of the said Dharmshala that the accused and the prosecutrix stayed there from 31-3-1992 to 2-4-1992 and they had signed the register. ASI Sher Singh PW7 stated that he recorded formal FIR PH/1 on the basis of ruqa Ex. PH. 8. Pramod Kumar son of Kuldeep Singh PW8 stated that he had seen the accused and the prosecutrix boarding a bus at bus stand, Jhajjar on 30-3-1992 at 6.30 a. m. On the same evening at about 5.00 p. m. he came across Daya Nand, father of the prosecutrix, and told him about his seeing the accused and the prosecutrix going in the bus in the morning. In his cross-examination, he also stated that he knew the accused earlier. He denied the suggestion that his mother and the mother of the prosecutrix were real sisters and, therefore, he was deposing falsely. Munshi Ram, a teacher in Government High School, Kasni appeared as PW9 and proved certificate Ex. PR, as per which the date of birth of the prosecutrix as entered in the school record was 26-1 -1978. 9. The prosecutrix was examined as PW 10. She stated her age as 141/2 years. Munshi Ram, a teacher in Government High School, Kasni appeared as PW9 and proved certificate Ex. PR, as per which the date of birth of the prosecutrix as entered in the school record was 26-1 -1978. 9. The prosecutrix was examined as PW 10. She stated her age as 141/2 years. She deposed that the accused came to the place where she was sleeping on the night intervening 29/30-3-1992 and after waking her up asked her to accompany him. She refused to go along with him. However, he promised to marry her and as such she was influenced and accompanied him. She was taken by him to a stadium at Jhajjar, where she was raped. Both of them reached bus stand, Jhajjar at about 7.00 A. M. on 30-3-1992 and boarded a bus to Fatehabad, where they stayed in a Dharmshala for three days. During their stay there, the accused had been committing rape upon her. When she insisted to return to her house, he slapped her. Thereafter, they went to railway station, Hisar, where again they stayed for two days. The accused then told her that he had no money left with him and, therefore, wanted to go to Jhajjar. When they reached bus stand, Jhajjar and were waiting there, her sister, while in the company of the police reached there. She also stated that letters Ex. PT and PS were written by the accused to her. 10. Daya Nand, father of the prosecutrix, while appearing as PW11, deposed about the disappearance of the prosecutrix from the house and the search leading him to Jhajjar, where he was told by Pramod Kumar about the accused and the prosecutrix boarding a bus. 11. Cousin of the prosecutrix was also examined as PW 12 and she stated about finding the accused and the prosecutrix sitting together at booth No. 1 of bus stand, Jhajjar. when she herself was going to her matrimonial home at Delhi after boarding a bus from Kasni. She immediately informed the police, whereafter the accused was apprehended and the prosecutrix recovered. 12. AS1 Jai Prakash PW 13 and SI Ram Sarup Godara PW 14 deposed about the investigation part of the case. 13. Reports of Forensic Science Laboratary, Madhuban (for short FSL) Ex. PN and Ex. PQ were tendered into evidence by the Public Prosecutor, besides, the affidavits of a number of police officials. 12. AS1 Jai Prakash PW 13 and SI Ram Sarup Godara PW 14 deposed about the investigation part of the case. 13. Reports of Forensic Science Laboratary, Madhuban (for short FSL) Ex. PN and Ex. PQ were tendered into evidence by the Public Prosecutor, besides, the affidavits of a number of police officials. The evidence of the prosecution was finally closed on 10-9-1993. 14. The case of the prosecution was then put to the accused when he was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. He denied the correctness of the same and stated that he had an affair with the prosecutrix which was not to the liking of her father. According to him, the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age as on 30-3-1992. 15. The accused examined Prem Sagar Malhotra, Statistical Assistant in the office of Civil Surgeon, Rohtak as DW1, who proved the certificate regarding the dale of birth of one Har Bhagwan son of Daya Nand. Sumer DW2 stated that he was born and residing in village Kasni and thus, knew Daya Nand-complainant. According to him, Shanti was the wife of Daya Nand. 16. After perusing the evidence, the trial Court came to a conclusion that certificate Ex. PR reflected the actual date of birth of the prosecutrix as 26-1 -1978 and, therefore, she was less than 16 years of age on the date of occurrence which had taken place on 30-3-1992. The testimony of the prosecutrix was accepted, which was also found to be corroborated by that of her father Daya Nand. PW 11, Parmod Kumar PW8 and her cousin, who appeared as PW 12. Accordingly, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced for the offences as mentioned above. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no satisfactory evidence brought by the prosecution on record to show that on the day of occurrence, the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age, In fact, according to the defence, she was more than 18 years of age, and thus, as was clear from the medical evidence, a consenting party. The consent was also obvious from the fact that both the accused and the prosecutrix remained together for a couple of days during which period they moved around in busy places but in spite of that the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm or offer any resistance. The consent was also obvious from the fact that both the accused and the prosecutrix remained together for a couple of days during which period they moved around in busy places but in spite of that the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm or offer any resistance. Thus, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 366 and 376. IPC was not maintainable and liable to be set aside. In the alternative, it was submitted that the appellant was born on 10-5-1975 and on the date of the occurrence he was less than 17 years of age. Matriculation certificate mark X showing date of birth of the appellant was tendered into evidence by the accused on 30-11-1993 when he was heard by the trial Court on the question of sentence. Hence, it was prayed that a case is made out for awarding lesser than the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 376, IPC. 18. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was shown to be below the age of 16 years on the date of occurrence and thus, the question of consent would not arise. Even if there is any material on the file, which could show that the prosecutrix had consented to her being taken and thereafter, subjected to sexual intercourse, the same was immaterial. Regarding the quantum of sentence it was pleaded that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant did not deserve any leniency. 19. I have minutely scanned the entire evidence led by the parties with the help of their learned Counsel and also the documents brought on the record. 20. The main question involved in the present appeal is the determination of the age of the prosecutrix. It is clear from the testimony of Hawa Singh PW3 that no record regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix was found in the office of Chief Medical Officer. Rohtak. When the FIR was got registered by Daya Nand, he stated the age of the prosecutrix to be 14 years. When the prosecutrix was recovered by the police on 8-4-1992 and medico-legally examined by Dr. Promila PW1, the prosecutrix gave her age as 15 years. While being examined as PW10, the prosecutrix again mentioned her age to be 141/6 years. The prosecutrix was a student of Government High School, Kasni. When the prosecutrix was recovered by the police on 8-4-1992 and medico-legally examined by Dr. Promila PW1, the prosecutrix gave her age as 15 years. While being examined as PW10, the prosecutrix again mentioned her age to be 141/6 years. The prosecutrix was a student of Government High School, Kasni. She had appeared in the middle standard examination conducted by Haryana Education Board in February, 1992. Munshi Ram PW9, who was posted as a teacher in the aforementioned School, clearly stated that as per certificate Ex. PR, which had been issued by the Head Master of the School, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 26-1-1978. Though, it is correct that in his cross-examination, Munshi Ram PW 9 did state that the father of the prosecutrix had not given any affidavit regarding the date of birth of his daughter i.e. the prosecutrix, at the time of her admission yet this Court can not lose sight of the fact that she was admitted in the School on 24-4-1989. At the time of her admission in the year 1989, the school Leaving Certificate issued by the Government Primary girls School, Kasni was received, which mentioned the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 26-1-1978. Accordingly, this date of birth was entered in the record of government High School, Kasni, Moreover, the admission of the presecutrix in the High School was in the year 1989 when the date of her- birth was recorded as 26-1-1978, it cannot be said that the same was wrongly recorded for some other purpose, It is, thus, conclusively proved that the prosecutrix was about 14 years and 2 months old on the date of occurrence. 21. Once it is held that the prosecutrix was below the age of 16 years on the date of occurrence, even if she had willingly gone with the accused or consented to sex, no benefit can be extended to the accused. As per the provisions of Section 375, I.P.C., sexual intercourse by a man with a woman with or without her consent when she is under the age of 16 years, amounts to rape. Even otherwise, it is established that the prosecutrix was allured by the accused on the promise of marrying her. She accompanied him from one place to the other. She was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused in a stadium at Jhajjar. Even otherwise, it is established that the prosecutrix was allured by the accused on the promise of marrying her. She accompanied him from one place to the other. She was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused in a stadium at Jhajjar. They stayed in a Dharamshala at Fatehabad for a period of three days, where again she was similarly treated. 22. During the investigation of the case, letters Ex. PT and PS written by the accused to the prosecutrix were recovered when they were produced by her father Daya Nand on 5-4-1992 vide recovery memo Ex. PU. These letters were found to be written by the accused as per report Ex. PQ of the Hand-writing Expert. A perusal of the same shows that the accused had planned with the prosecutrix to run away from the house. There is an element of promise being extended by the accused in those letters to the prosecutrix for marrying her. 23. When the prosecutrix and the accused were recovered by the police from the bus stand. Jhajjar on 8-4-1992, she had made a statement Ex. PS/1 before SHO Ram Sarup Godara, PW 14 to the effect that she was raped by the accused on the night intervening 29/30-3-1992 in a stadium at Jhajjar, 24. Report Ex. PN prepared by Senior Scientific Officer of FSL revealed the presence of human semen on the salwar of the prosecutrix. The same, coupled with the opinion of Dr. Promila PW 1 that possibility at sexual intercourse within the last one week could not be ruled out, too conclusively prove that it was the accused who had al-lured a young girl of about 14 years and SI months of age an the premise of marrying her and thereafter, subjecting her to sexual intercourse which amounted to rape. As such no fault can be found with the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. 25. Coming to the question of sentence, it is to be seen that Section 376, I.P.C. prescribes minimum punishment of seven years, which may also be for life to an accused found guilty for committing an offence of rape, Proviso to Section 376(1), I. P. C states that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment, impose a sentence of Imprisonment for a term of less than seven years, 26. In the case in hand, it is clear from the matriculation certificate mark X that the appellant was born on 10-5-1975. He was, thus, less than 17 years of age on the date of the occurrence. The appellant was initially arrested on 8-4-1992 and thereafter released on bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 13-8-1992. He was again taken into custody on 30-11-1993 when he was sentenced by the trial Court and thereafter, extended the concession of bail by this Court on 17-1-1994. It is, thus, apparent that the appellant has, till date, undergone a substantive sentence of about six months in jail. The occurrence had taken place about 15 years back and all this while, the appellant was facing the agony of prosecution. He was about 17 years of age on the date of the occurrence. He is stated to be now a married person and having children. 27. In view of the above, there exist ad-equate and special reasons for awarding lesser sentence to the appellant than the minimum prescribed for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. 28. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C., the sentence of R.I. for seven years awarded to him under Section 376, I.P.C. is hereby reduced to R1 for four years, The fine of Rs. 2,500.00 imposed by the trial Court for the laid offence, is enhanced to Rs, 10,000.00 , in default of payment of line of Rs, 10,000.00 the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for one year. The sentence of imprisonment and line imposed upon the appellant for the of-fence under Section 300, I.P.C. by the trial court alongwith its default clause are maintained, Substantive sentences of imprisonment shall, however, run concurrently, 29. Except for the above modification in the quantum of sentence, the present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.