Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant Mohd. Aslam has preferred the appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 25-6-94 passed by the First Additional Sessions judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 88/93 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 363 and 366 of i. P. C. and sentenced to undergo seven years r. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default 2 months R. I. , 2 months R. I. and fine of Rs. 200/- in default 1 month R. I. and 3 years r. I. and fine of Rs. 200/- in default 1 month r. I. respectively. ( 2. ) THE case of the prosecution in short is that prosecutrix (PW-9) resides with his father Nandlal (PW-1) and mother, kamlawati (PW-4 ). On 6-2-93, Nandlal and kamlawati were out of village, Singori in respect of their business of oil, prosecutrix and her sister Anusia (PW-7) were at home. On 6-2-93, prosecutrix and her sister Suia alias anusia went to wash the clothes on the well of Davendra Singh Seth which was situated on Rajola road. Anusia was fetching water from the well and prosecutrix was washing the clothes. The appellant accused Aslam reached on spot and took the prosecutrix on bicycle towards Badegaon thereafter he took the prosecutrix on bicycle to Shivpuri and then by truck to Sarni. They reached sarni at about 11 o clock in the night and they stayed in the Aslams house. On 7-2-93, Aslam took a house on rent at Sarni and shifted along with the prosecutrix in the rented house. Everyday the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix asked the appellant to leave her to parents house, but he did not take her to parents house. The appellant took the prosecutrix to Betul to perform court marriage, but it was not materialised. Anusia came to the house and told his brother-in-law, Prakash (PW-8) that Aslam has taken prosecutrix on bicycle. Prakash informed the parents of prosecutrix in this respect, they searched prosecutrix and lodged report exhibit P- 15c in police chowki Singori. Thereafter the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant and she was brought in police Chowki, Singori. Panchanama Exhibit P-12 was prepared, one underwear and salwar of prosecutrix were seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P-9. Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Smt. P. Chhada (PW-3 ). Thereafter the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant and she was brought in police Chowki, Singori. Panchanama Exhibit P-12 was prepared, one underwear and salwar of prosecutrix were seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P-9. Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Smt. P. Chhada (PW-3 ). She could not give any definite opinion in respect of commission of sexual intercourse with prosecutrix as per Exhibit P-5. We prepared two slides from the vaginal smear of prosecutrix, sealed them and handed over to police. Sealed slides were seized as per seizure memo exhibit P-7, spot map Exhibit P-8 was prepared, one school certificate Exhibit P-11 of prosecutrix was seized as per seizure memo exhibit P-10. One Dakhil Khariz Registrar of Primary Girls School, Singore was seized as per seizure Exhibit P-14. The appellant was arrested, he was examined by Dr. R. K. Sharma, he found the appellant competent to perform sexual intercourse as per report exhibit P-3, he prepared slide from the semen of the appellant and slide was handed over to police, sealed semen slide was seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P-6. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted, case was committed to court of Session for trial. ( 3. ) LEARNED Trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I. P. C. The appellant adjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. His defence is that on 6-2-93, he was on his photo-frame shop. ( 4. ) PROSECUTION examined 15 witnesses, no witness has been examined in defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing evidence and material on record, learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376, i. P. C. and sentenced him as hereinabove mentioned. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred the appeal. ( 5. ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment, evidence and material on record. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for appellant Shri A. Usmani, vehemently argued that the age of the prosecutrix is above 18 years, she eloped with the appellant voluntarily. Prosecutrix is a consenting party. The appellant has not committed any offence and learned Trial court committed error in convicting the appellant. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for appellant Shri A. Usmani, vehemently argued that the age of the prosecutrix is above 18 years, she eloped with the appellant voluntarily. Prosecutrix is a consenting party. The appellant has not committed any offence and learned Trial court committed error in convicting the appellant. Learned panel lawyer supported the impugned judgment and contended that learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or perversity in convicting the appellant and sentencing him as hereinabove mentioned. ( 7. ) PROSECUTRIX (PW-9) in paragraph-4 of the cross-examination deposed that her age was 15 years at the time of seizure of her clothes. Nandlal (PW-1), father of the pros-ecutrix deposed that age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years. Kamlawati (PW-4), mother of the prosecutrix deposed that the age of the prosecutrix was 15 years at the time of the incident. Nandlal deposed that he admitted the prosecutrix in school, at that time, he was knowing the age and date of birth of the prosecutrix. Nathulal Banwari (PW-13), was Head Master of Girls School, singori, he deposed that as per the school record, date of birth of prosecutrix is 25-6-77, due to absence, the name of the prosecutrix was struck down from the register exhibit P-13 and it is clear from the evidence of Nathulal Banwari that an entry in Exhibit p-13 pertains to prosecutrix. Exhibit P-13, is only of Original Dakhil Khariz Register and the date of birth of prosecutrix is mentioned 25-6-77 in the register. The evidence of nathulal Banwari is reliable. If his evidence is read with Dakhil Khariz register and evidence of Nandlal (PW-1) and Kamlawati (PW-4) and prosecutrix (PW-9), it is crystal clear that the date of birth was written in school on the information of Nandlal and he was having knowledge of the date of birth of prosecutrix. Evidence of Nandlal, kamlawati, prosecutrix and Nathulal banwari and Exhibit P-13 A proves that the date of birth of prosecutrix was 25-6-77 and on the date of incident i. e. 6-2-93, her age was about 15 years 8 months hence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years. ( 8. ) DR. R. K. Sharma (PW-2) on 26-2-93 medically examined the appellant Mohd. Aslam, he deposed that the appellant was competent to perform sexual intercourse. ( 8. ) DR. R. K. Sharma (PW-2) on 26-2-93 medically examined the appellant Mohd. Aslam, he deposed that the appellant was competent to perform sexual intercourse. His report is corroborated by Exhibit P-3. Evidence of R. K. Sharma is not challenged in the course of arguments and in his cross-examination. Hence, it is proved that the appellant was competent to perform sexual intercourse. As per medical evidence, no injury on the person of appellant or private part of the appellant was found. Dr. Smt. P. Chhada medically examined the prosecutrix, she did not find any injury on the person or private part of the prosecutrix. She could not give any definite opinion in respect of commission of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, that is to say, that there is no medical evidence on record in respect of commission of recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. ( 9. ) PROSECUTRIX (PW-9) deposed that on the fateful day, she along with her sister anusia (PW-7) went to well of Davendra singh Seth to wash clothes. Well is situated at Rajola Road. Anusia was fetching water from the well. Appellant came on the spot and dragged her towards Badegaon, thereafter he took her to Badegaon on bicycle, from Badegaon, he took her to Shivpuri. From Shivpuri, he took her to Sarni in a truck, they reached Sarni at night and stayed in the house of the appellant. The appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. Prosecutrix deposed that the appellant used to commit sexual intercourse daily with her in day and night. He kept her in a rented house. Ultimately, police recovered her from the possession of the appellant and apprehended the appellant. She was kept in police station Sarni and next day she was taken to Singori. Anusia alias Sia also corroborated the testimony of prosecutrix, she deposed that when prosecutrix was washing the clothes and she was fetching water from the well, the appellant came and caught hold of the prosecutrix and took her away, she left her bucket on the well and went to her house and informed about the incident to her sister Shanti and brother-in-law, Prakash (PW-8 ). Prakash also deposed that Anusia came from the well and told her that Aslam has taken the prosecutrix on bicycle. He along with Nandlal, father-in-law searched prosecutrix but could not find her. Prakash also deposed that Anusia came from the well and told her that Aslam has taken the prosecutrix on bicycle. He along with Nandlal, father-in-law searched prosecutrix but could not find her. Prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant, she told him that the appellant took her on cycle to Badegaon and shivpuri and in truck to Sarni, she also told him that appellant committed rape with her. Kamlawati (PW-4), deposed that she and her husband Nandlal (PW-1) came back from pandarai. Anusia told them that appellant, aslam caught hold of the prosecutrix and dragged her towards Badegaon. She was successfully searched, thereafter prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant, prosecutrix told her that appellant had taken her to Sarni and committed rape with her. Nandlal also corroborated the testimony of these witnesses. He lodged written complaint Exhibit P-1. Bhaiyalal (PW-14), received Exhibit P-1 and entered the same in Roznamchasana No. 224 as exhibit P-15. ( 10. ) NEWALAL Vishwakarma (PW-6)prepared the spot map Exhibit P-8. It is clear that the well is situated near the road. It is shown that the appellant was standing near the well shown at No. 6. The well is three furlongs away from the house of Nandlal. Chetram (PW-10), deposed that the underwear and salwar was seized from the prosecutrix as per seizure memo Exhibit P-9. The seizure of salwar and underwear from prosecutrix is proved by Sambhu Prasad Ahirwar (PW-15 ). Sambhu Prasad Ahirwar also seized the slides of prosecutrix prepared from her vaginal smear as per seizure memo Exhibit p-7. Bharatlal (PW-5) also corroborated the seizure of slides as per seizure memo exhibit P-7. Shambu Prasad Ahiwar (PW-15)and Bharatlal (PW-5) proved that in the sealed slide prepared from the semen of the appellant has been seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P-6. Sambhu Prasad Ahirwar (PW-15), seized school certificate as per seizure memo Exhibit P-10 in the presence of bhuwanlal Sahu (PW-11), the relevant certificate is Exhibit P-11. Shambu Prasad ahirwar (PW-15), also seized one Dakhil khariz Register as per Exhibit P-14 from nathulal Banwari (PW-3 ). The relevant copy of register is Exhibit P-13 which has been discussed in the previous paras of the witnesses. Damodar (PW-12), turned hostile, he is not supporting the seizure Exhibit p-10. Seizure of aforementioned articles have not been challenged during the course of the arguments. ( 11. The relevant copy of register is Exhibit P-13 which has been discussed in the previous paras of the witnesses. Damodar (PW-12), turned hostile, he is not supporting the seizure Exhibit p-10. Seizure of aforementioned articles have not been challenged during the course of the arguments. ( 11. ) I have gone through the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-9), Nandlal (PW-1), kamlawati (PW-4), Anusia alias Sia (PW-7)and Prakash (PW-8), I am of the view that there is no material contradiction, omission or improvement in their statements. They remain firm and consistent in cross-examination. There is no exaggeration in their statement. There is no evidence on record to show that these witnesses are falsely implicating the appellant in a offence like kidnapping and rape. There is no previous enmity between the appellant and these witnesses. Their statements are corroborated by report Exhibit P-1 and roznamchasana entry Exhibit P-15. Evidences of these witnesses is reliable and learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or perversity in relying upon the testimony of these witnesses. Learned Trial Court rightly held that on 6-2-93, prosecutrix (PW-9) and her sister Anusia alias Sia (PW-7) went to wash clothes on the well and the appellant Mohd. Aslam came there and took prosecutrix from the well. She was taken to Sarni via badegaon and Shivpuri and he committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix. ( 12. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the medical evidence belies the commission of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW-9), hence, it cannot be held that the appellant has committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon Yerumalla Latchaiah v. State of A. P. (2006) 9 SCC 713 contended that according to the evidence of doctor Smt. P. Chadda who examined the prosecutrix immediately after the occurrence, there was no sign of rape. Thus, evidence of prosecutrix is belied by the medical evidence and it should be held that the accused/appellant is entitled to acquittal. In the case of Yerumalla Lachaiah (supra), the age of the prosecutrix was eight years. On examination of prosecutrix Dr. K. Scheritha stated in her evidence that no injury was found on any part of the body, much less on private part. Hymen was found intact and the doctor specifically stated that there was no sign of rape at all. In the case of Yerumalla Lachaiah (supra), the age of the prosecutrix was eight years. On examination of prosecutrix Dr. K. Scheritha stated in her evidence that no injury was found on any part of the body, much less on private part. Hymen was found intact and the doctor specifically stated that there was no sign of rape at all. It has been stated that the vaginal smears were collected and examined under the microscope but no sperm detected. But the facts of the present case is different from aforementioned citation. The age of the prosecutrix is 15 years plus. As per Dr. Smt. P. Chadda, hymen was absent and two fingers were entering in the vagina of the prosecutrix. She opined that no definite opinion can be given in respect of recent intercourse with the prosecutrix. Hence, citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not help the appellants case. It is settled principle of law that if evidence of prosecutrix is corroborated by other evidence and it does not suffer from any infirmity and evidence is cogent and consistent then conviction can be based on the testimony of prosecutrix and her evidence can be relied upon. As it has been observed that there is no enmity between the prosecutrix and her family with the appellant and there is no reason to implicate the appellant in false case. Hence, the evidence of prosecutrix and other witnesses is reliable. ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that there is sufficient evidence and circumstances on record to hold that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she eloped with the appellant with her consent and appellant committed sexual intercourse with her consent. It is also urged that on way to Sarni from the place of incident, there was sufficient occasion for prosecutrix to alarm the persons which were found on the way, but she did not do so and did not call any one to help her, which leads to the presumption that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. It is true that the prosecutrix (PW-9) did not cry for help on way to sarni even inform to the truck driver by which they went to Sarni, but only this fact does not lead to the presumption that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. It is true that the prosecutrix (PW-9) did not cry for help on way to sarni even inform to the truck driver by which they went to Sarni, but only this fact does not lead to the presumption that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the appellant dragged the prosecutrix from the spot and took her on bicycle thereafter, in a truck to Sarni. Prosecutrix specifically denied that the appellant used to give her money and she was intimate with the appellant. She also specifically and firmly denied that one day before this incident, the appellant met her and told her that they will go to an enjoy trip. She also denied that she herself sat on the bicycle of the appellant and went with him. She also specifically deposed that no one was found on way to badegaon. She also specifically stated that she does not want to elope with the appellant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit. There is no sufficient evidence on record that the prosecutrix was in love with the appellant and she voluntarily eloped with the appellant. It is evident from the evidence of prosecutrix that the appellant came on the spot and dragged her from the spot up to kilometers and thereafter he took her away on bicycle. If it is taken to be true that the prosecutrix is a consenting party, it does not help in any way to the appellant because on 6-2-93, the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years and her consent to sexual intercourse does not help the appellant because there is evidence that prosecutrix was enticed by the appellant to go with him. There is sufficient evidence on record that the prosecutrix was removed from the lawful guardianship of Nandlal (PW-1) by deceitful means, under compulsion. There is sufficient evidence on record that the prosecutrix was removed from the legal guardianship of her parents with intent to commit illicit sexual intercourse with her. There is sufficient evidence on record that the prosecutrix was removed from the lawful guardianship of Nandlal (PW-1) by deceitful means, under compulsion. There is sufficient evidence on record that the prosecutrix was removed from the legal guardianship of her parents with intent to commit illicit sexual intercourse with her. Looking to the graveness of offence under this section, the violation, intention and the conduct of the women do not determine the offence, they can only foretell upon the intent with which the accused had kidnapped her and abducted the women and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determination in each case. Once answer to the intent of the accused is established, evidence is complete, whether accused succeeded in his purpose and whether or not in the event, the woman was consented to the marriage or illicit intercourse. On going through the evidence of prosecutrix, it is clear that that intent of the appellant was to force prosecutrix to illicit intercourse and ultimately he succeeded and seduced prosecutrix to illicit intercourse. Consequently, the offence of abduction of the prosecutrix from the legal guardianship of her parents is complete. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are devoid of merit. ( 14. ) THE appellant by active persuation enticed the prosecutrix below 16 years of age to come from one place to another with intent to have sex illegitimately hence, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under sections 363, 366 and 376, I. P. C. and no interference is warranted in the judgment of conviction. Looking to the graveness of the offence, I am of the view that the jail sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is adequate and there is no scope to reduce the jail sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. ( 15. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender forthwith before the Trial court to undergo remaining part of jail sentence otherwise the learned Trial Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest to commit him to jail to undergo remaining part of jail sentence. Appeal dismissed.