JUDGMENT 1. 1. The accused appellant Yogesh filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated July 29, 2006 of Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1 Bundi in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2006 whereby the accused appellant was convicted for the offence under section 366 Indian Penal Code to undergo 10 Years RI with fine of Rs. 500, in default of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months, under section 366 A to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months, under section 368 Indian Penal Code to undergo Ten Years RI and fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of 3 months, under section 372 Indian Penal Code, to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 500, in default of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months and under section 376 Indian Penal Code to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 500, in default to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months and under Section 3 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention ) Act, 1956 to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months under Section 6 of the Immoral Traffic ( Prevention ) Act, 1956 to undergo Three Years RI with a fine of Rs. 500 and in event of default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months under Section 9 of Immoral Traffic ( Prevention ) Act, 1956 to undergo Seven years RI with fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo three months additional imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sharda submitted a written report before the SHO Police Station Sadar, Bundi on Feb. 13, 2006 at 6. 10 p.m. alleging therein that fifteen to twenty days ago when she was going with her parents from Amrawati to Vardha then she fell asleep in the train. It was further stated that the parents of the complainant got down at Vardha. It was further stated that when the complainant woke up at Nagpur, she found that her parents were not with her then she started weeping. It was further stated that the parents of the complainant got down at Vardha. It was further stated that when the complainant woke up at Nagpur, she found that her parents were not with her then she started weeping. It was further stated that at that moment, one Yogesh Kanjar, resident of Rajasthan met her and told the complainant that he will leave the complainant at her house. It was further stated by the complainant that Yogesh brought her to Ram Nagar, Bundi and he forced the complainant to state before the Police that she is a resident of Gwalior and they have got married in a temple. It was further stated by the complainant that when she denied to do so then the accused appellant beat her and committed rape upon her without her consent. It was further alleged that about there or four persons also committed rape upon her and the accused appellant restrained her in his house. Upon this statement an FIR No. 72/2006 under sections 372, 373, 376, and 343 Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation was started. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet under sections 372, 373, 376, 343, 366, 354 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 was submitted against the accused appellant Yogesh before the Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Bundi. Because section 376 Indian Penal Code is a sessions trial, the said case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge. The case was thereafter transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Bundi by the Sessions Judge Bundi. Charge for the offence under sections 366, 366A, 376, 368 and 372 Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 6, and 9 of the Immoral Traffic ( Prevention ) Act, 1956 was framed against the accused appellant. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 14 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents in support of its case. The statement of the accused appellant under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The accused appellant denied the charges and pleaded that he was innocent. After hearing both the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Bundi vide his judgment dated July 29, 2006 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above. 3. Mr. The statement of the accused appellant under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The accused appellant denied the charges and pleaded that he was innocent. After hearing both the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Bundi vide his judgment dated July 29, 2006 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above. 3. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant argued that the court below committed a gross error of law in convicting the accused appellant even though the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant. The FIR was delayed by fifteen to twenty days. No specific reason was given for the delay by the complainant. The court below has failed to appreciate that the FIR lodged by the complainant was a false complaint. The court below erred in convicting the accused appellant while not considering the fact that the prosecutrix was not a minor but was a major. Dr. Manoj (PW.1) stated that the prosecutrix was not virgin but was habituate to sexual intercourse, for copulation. He stated that according to the opinion of the Radiologist the age of the prosecutrix was near about 16 years. It is a well established principle that there can be a difference of 2-3 years between the real age and the assessed age and no specific opinion can be given for the age in the ossification test. The learned counsel argued that as such it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was minor. The trial court failed to appreciate the statement of PW.1 where he stated that there was no injury on the private parts of the body of the prosecutrix and there was no sign of resistance on the hands, thighs and other parts of the body. There was no evidence of independent witness regarding the incident. The statement was either of the prosecutrix herself or of the investigating officers and police persons. The prosecutrix in her statement stated that the accused appellant kept her in his house near about 20-25 days and in the very beginning she did not face any problem. She stated that when they reached at Kota from Nagpur then she did not make any complaint of Yogesh to any of the passengers. She stated that she used to wash her clothes herself and she was living with the accused appellant happily in one room. She stated that when they reached at Kota from Nagpur then she did not make any complaint of Yogesh to any of the passengers. She stated that she used to wash her clothes herself and she was living with the accused appellant happily in one room. The trial court failed to consider the statement of PW.4 Sushila wife of Ishwarlal and mother of accused appellant where she stated that the prosecutrix was living with the accused appellant happily. In her statement she stated that the age of the prosecutrix seems near about 18 or 19 years and the accused appellant never committed the alleged offence of prostitution. As per the statement of the prosecutrix herself it cannot be said that the accused appellant has kidnapped or abducted her or committed rape upon her or used his house for the prostitution purposes. It is hard to believe the story as narrated by the prosecutrix and the entire story seems to be concocted one and has been framed just in order to implicate the accused appellant. The court below did not appreciate the statements of PW.9 Rajendra Singh ASI, PW.10 Jugraj Singh, ASI, PW.11 Amba Lal, Constable where they all stated that they did not find any person or the accused appellant forcing the prosecutrix for prostitution. The trial court also failed to appreciate the fact that no single independent witness has ever stated against the accused appellant regarding prostitution. The accused appellant is living with his parents and brothers in a joint family and also living since a long time in the village. He has a very good reputation in his village, as such it was not possible for the accused appellant that he could commit any offence regarding rape or prostitution against the prosecutrix. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of conviction, and rightly sentenced the accused appellant. This impugned judgment of the trial court is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment. He has placed reliance on Idan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1976 RLW 562 : (1977 Cri LJ 556) . 5. This impugned judgment of the trial court is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment. He has placed reliance on Idan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1976 RLW 562 : (1977 Cri LJ 556) . 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record and judgment of the trial court. 6. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to have a look at the evidence produced by the prosecution.PW.1 Dr. Manoj Jain, who examined the prosecutrix on 14.2.2006 at 11.00 a.m. as per the consent of prosecutrix stated her age to be 16-15 years and in his opinion prosecutrix was not vergin. In his statement he stated thus : " jsfM;ksykaftLV dh jk; ds vk/kkj ij 'kkjnk dh mez yxHkx lksyg ls iUnzg o"kZ ikbZ xbZA esjh jk; esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd og oftZu FkhA tcfd laHkksx dh vH;LFkr FkhA "" ;g lgh gS fd eqvk;us ds oDr 'kkjnk ds ckg~; ikVZ o izkbZosV vax ij dksbZ pksV ugha FkhA esa rktk laHkksx ds ckjs esa fcuk ,Q0,l0,y0 fjiksVZ ds ckjs esa jk; ugha ns ldrk gwaA ;s ckr lgh gS fd eSaus eqvk;us ds le; 'kkjnk ds gkFk] dksguh tka?k o vU; LFkkuksa ij izfrjks/k djus ds dksbZ fu'kku ugha ik;s FksA ;s dguk lgh gS fd gk;eu iqjkuk QVk gqvk o ghYM FkkA ;s lgh gS fd vkflfQds'ku VsLV esa mez ds ckjs esa jk; ugha nh tk ldrh gSA ;s ckr lgh gS fd eksnh T;wfjlizhMsUl dks ekurk gwWaA ;s ckr lgh gS fd vkflfQds'ku VsLV esa rhu lky dk varj vkuk laHko gSA " PW.2 Dr. Arvind Sharma who was Specialist and Radiologist in Govt. Hospital Bundi stated about the X-ray done by him of prosecutrix. He gave out age of the prosecutrix 14-15 years. He admitted in his cross- examination that no specific opinion can be given about the age in ossification test. He stated in cross-examination thus : " ;s ckr lgh gS fd vkflfQds'ku VsLV esa mez ds ckor fuf'pr jk; ugha nh tk ldrh vuqekfur jk; nh tkrh gSA " PW.3 Sharda prosecutrix in her statement stated about the rape committed by the accused appellant without her consent. She also stated about the five persons committed rape with her along with the accused appellant. She also stated about the five persons committed rape with her along with the accused appellant. In her statement she stated thus : (extracted portion) " eq>s ;ksxs'k us vius vius ?kj chl iPphl fnu j[kk Fkk 'kq: ds lkr vkB fnu vPNh rjg j[kk vkSj mlds ckn mlus esjs ethZ ds fo:) esjs lkFk [kksVk dke djuk 'kq: dj fn;kA " " fQj mlus nwljksa ls iSls ysdj esjs lkFk xyr dke djokuk pkyw dj fn;k [kksVk dke djokuk 'kq: dj fn;kA eSaus euk fd;k rks mlus eq>s Mjk;k /kedk;k vkSj dgk fd rsjs dks tkuk gS rks fcuk fVdV ds vHkh pyh tkA "" ;ksxs'k us mlds Vk;ysV djus ds vax dks esjh Vk;ysV djus dh vax esa ?kqlk fn;k FkksM+k ?kqlkus ij [kwu fudy vk;k Fkk esus euk fd;k rks og ekjus yxk mlds ?kj ij fj'rsnkj Fks ij fdlh us Hkh esjk lkFk ugha fn;kA "" ;ksxs'k ds vykok ikap yksxksa us esjs lkFk laHkksx fd;k Fkk ftu ikWap yksxksa us esjs lkFk laHkksx fd;k Fkk muds uke ls ugha tkurh gwWaA bu yksxksa dks ;ksxs'k vkSj mldk HkkbZ ysdj vkrs FksA " In her statement under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code she stated thus : " ;ksxs'k 4 fnu rd jkst jkr ds 3 ckj fcuk ethZ ds esjs lkFk cykRdkj djrk FkkA eSaus mldh eka o HkkbZ dks dgk rks mUgksaus eq>ls dgk :d tk csVk fdjk;k tek x;k rks eSa rq>s Hkst nwaxhA eSaus ;ksxs'k dks dgk eSa tkuk pkgrh gwWa rks mlus dgk oxSj fdjk;k fudy tk ugha rks xzkgd cSBk dj fdjk;k tek dj fudy tkA ,d fnu ckn ;ksxs'k ,d xzkgd yk;kA eq>ls dgk bls cSBk ysA eSaus dgk iSls rks mlus dgk iSls eEeh ds ikl gSA ,slk djds ;ksxs'k us vyx vyx fnu esa 4 xzkgd cSBk;s vkSj ikap lkS :0 ;ksxs'k us viuh eEeh ds ikl fn;sA mlds ckn vkSj nwljs fnu esa 4 xzkgd vk;s FksA rks eSaus lkspk vxj eSaus budks crk;k ugha rks ;s yksx eq>s ekj MkysxsA xzkgdksa us esjk uke iwNk rks eSaus dgk esjk uke 'kkjnk gS eSa egkjk"V~ dh jgus okyh gwWaA mlds ckn eSaus mudks viuh lkjh ckr crkbZA mUgksaus eq>ls dgk Bhd gS ge rqEgs ;gka ls NqM+k dj ysdj tk;saxsA os eq>s 200 ( v{kjs nks lks ) nsdj x;sA mUgksaus esjs lkFk dqN ugha fd;kA " In the written report Ex. P.5 she stated as under : " fuosnu gS fd djhc 15&20 fnu igys eSa esjs ekrk firk ds lkFk mejkorh ls ojnk vk jgh Fkh Vs~u esa esjh uhUn yx xbZ esjs ekrk firk ojnk mrj x;s esjh uhUn ukxiqj esa [kqyh eSa ukxiqj LVs'ku ij mrjdj jksus yxh rks eq>s ukxiqj LVs'ku ij ;ksxs'k datj jktLFkku jgus okyk feyk ftuls esjs ls dgk fd eSa rq>s rsjs ?kj ij NksM+ nwaxkA ;g dg dj eq>s ;gkWa ij ys vk;k gSaA ij ;ksxs'k esjs ls dgk fd rq>s iqfyl okys iwNs rks crkuk fd esa Xokfy;j dh jgus okyh gwWa esus ;ksxs'k ls efUnj esa 'kknh djyh gS eSaus ;g ckr ;ksxs'k fd ugha ekuh rks esjs lkFk ekjihV dh rFkk nks rhu ckj ;ksxs'k us esjs bPNk ds f[kykQ cqjk dke fd;k vc rd vyx vyx fnu 4 O;fDr;ksa dks esjs ikl Hkstdj esjs lkFk [kksVk dke djok;k ;ksxs'k us muls :i;s fy;s eq>s ?kj esa gh cUn j[kk ckgj ugha tkus fn;k ;ksx'k datj fuoklh jke uxj datj cLrh cqUnh us esjh ethZ ds f[kykQ esjs lkFk cqjk dke fd;k :i;s ysdj nwljs ls cqjk dke djok;k blds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh djsA " PW.4 Sushila, who is mother of the accused appellant was declared hostile. She stated that she has seen Sharda with Yogesh his son. Sharda lived with Yogesh for 25 days, but who brought her is not known to her. PW.5 Suresh Chand, SI, Police Station Sadar Bundi, stated about the FIR chalked out by him on 13.2.2006 over which he put his signature A to B. He handed over the investigation to SHO Surendra Danodiya. PW.6 Ashok, who is brother of the accused appellant was declared hostile. But he admitted that Yogesh brought Sharda and she lived in a rented house. He also stated that she lived as per her consent. PW.7 Dr. O.P. Verma, stated about the medical examination of accused appellant done by him and he stated that he was capable of sexual intercourse. PW.8 Bhanwar Singh, Constable No. 44 stated about how they reached at the residence of Yogesh and recovered Sharda from his residence. He also stated that she lived as per her consent. PW.7 Dr. O.P. Verma, stated about the medical examination of accused appellant done by him and he stated that he was capable of sexual intercourse. PW.8 Bhanwar Singh, Constable No. 44 stated about how they reached at the residence of Yogesh and recovered Sharda from his residence. He stated thus : " ;ksxs'k ds edku ij tkdj lh0vkbZ0 lkgc us vkokt yxkbZ vkSj dqUnh [kqyokbZA 'kkjnk ckgj vkbZ mlus crk;k fd ;ksxs'k us eq>s Hkxkdj ysdj vk;k gS vkSj esjs lkFk [kksVk dke djrk gS vkSj os';korh djokrk gSA vkSj nwljksa ls iSlk ysrk gSA 'kkjnk us fyf[kr fjiksVZ nhA lh0vkbZ0 us og fjiksVZ eq>s nhA " PW.9 Rajendra Singh stated about the information received from an informant that in the house of Yogesh one minor girl is kept and he is also doing the business of prostitution with her. In his statement he stated thus: " edku esa can j[kk vkSj ;ksxs'k us mls fdlh ls Hkh ckrphr ugha djus nh mldh bPNk ds fo:) [kksVk dke fd;k o vU; O;fDr;ksa ls iSls ysdj os';kofr djokrk jgkA blh etcwu dh ,d fyf[kr fjiksVZ 'kkjnk us ,l0,p0vks0 lkgc dks nh ftl ij dk;eh eqdnek gsrq esjh eksVjlkbZfdy ysdj Hkaoj flag dkULVscy dks Hkstk yM+dh dks nfLr;kc fd;kA " PW.10 Jugraj Singh, ASI stated that on 11.2.2006 CI Surendra Donidiya informed him including Rambhajan, Const. Ambalal, Bhanwar Singh, and Rajveer Driver, that he received an information from informant that in Ramnagar Kanjar Colony in the house of Yogesh son of Ishwar for the last 15 days one Maharashtrian minor girl is confined and doing the business of prostitution. Thereafter they all gone to the house of Yogesh and recovered minor girl whose name was later on disclosed by her to be Sharda. Thereafter they all gone to the house of Yogesh and recovered minor girl whose name was later on disclosed by her to be Sharda. In his statement he stated about what has been stated by the prosecutrix to him, thus : " esjs ekrk firk cj/kk LVs'ku ij mrj x;s esjh uhan ukxiqj [kqyh eSa ukxiqj mrjh og jksus yxh tgka ij eq>s ;ksxs'k jktLFkku dk feyk ftlus esjs dks dgk fd eSa rq>s rsjs xkao vejkorh NksM+ nsrk gwWaA ;s dgdj eq>s tgka ys vk;kA dejs esa can j[kk fdlh ls Hkh ckr ugha djus nhA o esjh bPNk ds fo:) esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;k o nwljs O;fDr;ksa ls :i;s ysdj muls Hkh esjs lkFk [kksVk dke djokdj os';ko`fr djokbZA " PW.11 Ambalal, Constable No. 387 supported the prosecution case and he was one of the constable who accompanied with Jugraj Singh ASI (PW.10) to Ramnagar Kanjar Basti. He stated in his statement what has been stated by the prosecutrix to them, as under : " ukxiqj LVs'ku ij mrj dj eSa jksus yxhA eq>s ukxiqj LVs'ku ij ;ksxs'k datj jkeuxj ftyk cwUnh ( jkt0 ) feykA ;ksxs'k us eq>ls dgk fd eSa rsjs dks vejkorh NksM+dj vkrk gwWaA ;ksxs'k eq>s jkeuxj xkao ys vk;k vkSj eq>s fdlh ls cksyus ugha fn;k vkSj ;ksxs'k us esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;kA nwljs O;fDr;ksa ls Hkh iSls ysdj esjs lkFk [kkVk dke vkSj os';ko`fr djokbZA bl vk'k; dh fjiksVZ fyf[kr esa dqekjh 'kkjnk us Jheku~ lh0vkbZ0 lkgc dks is'k dhA 'kkjnk us ;g Hkh crk;k fd [kksVk dke esjh ethZ ds f[kykQ fd;k tcjnLrh os';ko`fr djokbZA " PW.12 Bhanwarsingh, Constable No. 559 was Malkhana Incharge on 14.2.2006 and he stated about deposit of sealed packets of Vaginal Swab and Blood, Blood of accused Yogesh, prosecutrix Sharda's petticoat, accused appellant's Pant for depositing in the malkhana and thereafter same were sent with Constable Madanlal to FSL and receipt of FSL was also received by him which is Ex. P.17. FSL report is Ex. P.18 PW.13 Surendra Danodiya, SHO Sadar Bundi also supported the prosecution case and on 13.2.2006 he received information from an informant that in village Ramnagar one minor girl is confined by one lame boy and is doing the business of prostitution. Over which he immediately put endorsement in the Rojnamcha, which is Ex. P.19 where he put his signature A to B, copy of which is Ex. Over which he immediately put endorsement in the Rojnamcha, which is Ex. P.19 where he put his signature A to B, copy of which is Ex. P.19 A. He stated in his statement as under : " jkeuxj pkSdh ls pkSdh bapktZ jktsUnzflag ,0,l0vkbZ0 ds tkcrs dks ysdj eq[kchj }kjk cryk;s x;s O;fDr ds laca/k esa tkudkjh dh tks ;ksxsUnz ukd dk yaxM+k uked O;fDr tkudkjh esa vk;kA mlds ?kj ij igqapdj ns[kk rks ?kj dk dqank yxk gqvk FkkA vkSj ;ksxs'k ?kj esa ugha FkkA rc vUnj vkokt nsdj iwNk fd vanj dksbZ gS D;k rks vanj ls vkokt vkbZ vkSj dqUnk [kksyk rks ,d yM+dh ckgj vkbZ mlls uke iwNk rks mlus viuk uke dqekjh 'kkjnk iq=h eqjkjh o fuoklh vejkorh mez 14 lky gksuk crk;kA mlls ckjs esa D;k gqvk bl laca/k esa iwNk rks mlus crk;k fd eSa esjs ekrk firk ds lkFk vejkorh ls cj/kk tk jgh FkhA esjs Vs~u esa vka[k yx xbZA esjs ekrk firk mrj x;s esjh ukxiqj LVs'ku ij vka[k [kqyh vkSj uhps mrjh rks eq>s vius ifjfpr rFkk fpj ifjfpr dks [kkstk rks ,d yaxM+k lk yM+dk feyk ftldk uke ;ksxs'k datj tks jktLFkku dk jgus okyk Fkk tks eq>s ?kj NksM+us ds uke ysdj lkFk ys vk;kA mlus esjs lkFk nks rhu ckj ekjihV dh rFkk esjh bPNk ds fo:) nks rhu ckj cykRdkj ;kfu [kksVk dke fd;kA vkSj ;ksxs'k us vU; nks rhu O;fDr;ksa ls Hkh esjs lkFk [kksVk dke djok;k vkSj ;ksxs'k us muls :i;s fy;s eSaus mlls iwNk fd rqe fjiksVZ fy[kdj ns ldrh gks D;k rks mlus dgk fd eSa fjiksVZ fy[k dj ns ldrh gwWaA rks mlus ,d fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 5 fy[kdj nh ftl ij ds0 ls ,y0 dk;Zokgh iqfyl vks ls ,e esjs gLrk{kj o lh ls Mh 'kkjnk ds gLrk{kj djok;sA " PW.14 Madan Lal Constable No.18 Sadar Police Station Bundi, stated about the handing over of sealed packets to FSL and on depositing the sealed packets FSL gave receipt Ex. P.17. In the statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused appellant stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he is innocent. P.17. In the statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused appellant stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he is innocent. In the FSL report dated 1.4.2006, it was opined that Human semen was detected in Exhibits No. 1 (from packet marked A), 2 (from B), 3 & 4 (from C) (In packet A exhibit No. 1 is Petticoat, in Packet B exhibit No. 2 is Pant, in Packet C items 3 and 4 are Vaginal Swab and Vaginal Smear. 7. The trial court in its finding in relation to age stated that the age of the prosecutrix was 16 years and below 18 years and therefore she was minor. I have looked into the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court arrived at this finding on the basis that in Ex. P.5 which is written report by the prosecutrix she disclosed her age 14 years, in the medical examination her age was shown 14 years, in crime report Ex. P.8 her age was shown as 14 years, in the statement under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate she gave out her age 15 years, Medical officers and Medical jurists of the Hospital in the medical reports gave out age 14-15 years and in the statement before the court she given out her age 14 years. On the basis of these documents and statement the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecutrix was minor. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. The prosecutrix was minor when rape was committed by the accused appellant with her and business of prostitution was done by her on account of accused appellant who forced her to do so. The accused appellant collected money from the prostitution business. 8. It is clear from the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code recorded by the Magistrate, in her written report (Ex.P.5) and in her statement before the Court that the accused appellant kidnapped her from Nagpur on the pretext of leaving her to her house at Vardha, but he taken her away to his village Ramnagar in Bundi where he committed rape with her and also business of prostitution by collecting money from other persons. The brother of the accused appellant also stated that he has seen Sharda prosecutrix with the accused appellant in a rented house, though he has been declared hostile. The police witnesses in equal vocal terms stated about the mischief done with the prosecutrix by the accused appellant. I am in agreement with the finding of rape arrived at by the trial court with the prosecutrix and she has been forced by the accused appellant to do prostitution with other persons and collected money from them. It is also clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses mentioned above and as per the statement of the prosecutrix coupled with the report of FSL and medical examination done by the doctors, her statement under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code and her written report (Ex. P.5) submitted to the police, that accused committed rape with her and further the accused appellant forced her to do the business of prostitution and he collected money from the persons who came to him for sex satisfaction with the prosecutrix. The findings arrived at by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse. I am also in agreement with the finding of the trial court that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court on the charges levelled against him and proved by the evidence of prosecution witnesses is confirmed. But looking to the age of the accused appellant his sentence can be reduced from 10 years to 7 years. 9. In the result the conviction of the accused appellants for sections 366, 366A, 368, 372, 376 Indian Penal Code and for Sections 3, 6 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention ) Act, 1956 is confirmed but his sentence is reduced from 10 years to 7 years. 10. The State Government is directed to consider his case for remission under section 432 Criminal Procedure Code in accordance with law. The judgment of the trial court is modified to the extent stated above.Order accordingly. *******