JUDGMENT 1. - Vijay Kumar, Shri Ram, Anima, Kumari Reena and Salim Mohammad, appellants herein, along with seven co-accused persons, were put to trial before Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar, who vide judgment dated February 28, 2005, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Vijay Kumar : U/s. 376 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/s. 366 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 366A IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 363 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 120-B IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Shri Ram, Amina and Kumari Reena : U/s. 368 IPC : All to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 120-B IPC: All to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Salim Mohammad : U/s. 366 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 366A IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 363 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 120-B IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is the prosecution case that Bihari Lal Jaga on May 15, 2003 handed over to Police Station, Ranoli a missing report about his daughter 'R' (name withheld) aged about 15 years, who had gone to school at 8-9 AM to know her result but she did not come back. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is the prosecution case that Bihari Lal Jaga on May 15, 2003 handed over to Police Station, Ranoli a missing report about his daughter 'R' (name withheld) aged about 15 years, who had gone to school at 8-9 AM to know her result but she did not come back. Again on May 17, 2003 Bihari Lal Jaga submitted written report (Ex.P-14) at the same police station to the effect that on May 15, 2003 while his daughter was going to school Vijay Kumar with the help of Shri Ram Jaga, Pawan Kumar, Rohitash, Rekha, Reena kidnapped her and took her away in vehicle No. RJ-23 T0233. On that report a case under sections 363 and 366 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.PC. were recorded, necessary memos were drawn, prosecutrix was recovered and her statements got recorded, accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar. Charges under sections 1208, 363, 366, 366A, 376 and 368 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. One witness in support of defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecutrix accompanied appellant Vijay Kumar of her own and she was a consenting party thus no offence was committed by the appellant. As also no offence as alleged by the prosecution is established against other appellants. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor however supported the impugned judgment and urged that the appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned trial court. 5. Having scanned the material on record and considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses I find the factual situation as under : (a) According to medical evidence the age of prosecutrix on the date of incident was between 17-18 years and the age of Vijay Kumar was 24 years. (b) Dr. 5. Having scanned the material on record and considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses I find the factual situation as under : (a) According to medical evidence the age of prosecutrix on the date of incident was between 17-18 years and the age of Vijay Kumar was 24 years. (b) Dr. G.R. Tanwar (Pw.6), who examined the prosecutrix on May 28, 2003 found no injury on the person of prosecutrix and her hymen was found ruptured. (c) The prosecutrix (Pw.12) in the cross examination admitted that she travelled with Vijay Kumar at various places Jeen Mata, Palsana, Jaipur, Delhi, Asam and Sikar but she did not make any complaint to any person. (d) Love letters were written by the prosecutrix to Vijay Kumar have been placed on record to show that there was love affair between prosecutrix and Vijay Kumar. (e) No specific allegations have been levelled against Shri Ram, Anima, Kumari Reena and Salim Mohammad that they entered into conspiracy to kidnap the prosecutrix. 6. From the evidence adduced at the trial it is established that Vijay Kumar was able to trap the prosecutrix in his 'love net' and took her to various places and exploit her physically. It also appears from the record that appellant Vijay Kumar was 24 years of age on the date of offence and the offence appears to have been committed by him in his youthful exuberance. The prosecutrix as per Scholar Register was under 15 years of age but as per medical evidence her age was between 17-18 years. I am although of the view that offence under section 376 is established beyond reasonable doubt but the facts noticed as above warrant imposition of lesser sentence on Vijay Kumar. I however find that charge against the other appellants Sita Ram, Anima, Reema and Salim Mohd. could not be proved by the prosecution. Shri Ram is the father of Vijay Kumar, whereas Anima is the mother and Reena is his sister and whole family has been over implicated in the case. Appellant Salim was the driver of car in which prosecutrix and Vijay Kumar travelled together upto village Palsana and this fact itself is not sufficient to involve Salim with the crime. 7. Shri Ram is the father of Vijay Kumar, whereas Anima is the mother and Reena is his sister and whole family has been over implicated in the case. Appellant Salim was the driver of car in which prosecutrix and Vijay Kumar travelled together upto village Palsana and this fact itself is not sufficient to involve Salim with the crime. 7. In State of Rajasthan v. Ram Narain, (1996) 8 SCC 64 , the age of the prosecutrix was between 15 to 17 years and the age of accused was 18 years. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under sections 376, 366 and 342 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven years, five years and one year respectively and imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- On appeal the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, namely one and a half months. The Apex Court set aside the judgment of High Court and observed as under : (Para 7) "The question is : Whether the High Court is right in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, i.e., one and a half months? We think that the High Court has committed grave error of law in reducing the sentence. Therefore the judgment of High Court is set aside. The conviction of the first accused is upheld and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under section 376 IPC." 8. In Ummaid Nath v. State of Rajasthan, 1999(2) RCC 1383 wherein the age of the prosecutrix was found below 16 years at the time of occurrence and the prosecutrix went with the accused willingly and thus the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment. 9. For these reasons, I dispose of instant appeals in the following terms : (i) I partly allow the appeal of appellant Vijay Kumar and while maintaining his conviction under section 376 IPC, I reduce the sentence from seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to i further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Conviction and sentence awarded to him under section 366 IPC are maintained. Sentences shall run concurrently. He is however stands acquitted of the charges under sections 120B, 363 and 366A IPC. 1000/- in default to i further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Conviction and sentence awarded to him under section 366 IPC are maintained. Sentences shall run concurrently. He is however stands acquitted of the charges under sections 120B, 363 and 366A IPC. (ii) I allow the appeals of appellants Shri Ram, Anima, Kumari Reena and Salim Mohammad and acquit them of the charges under sections 1206, 368, 363, 366 and 366A IPC. These appellants are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. (iii) The impugned judgment of learned trial courts stand modified as indicated above. *******