JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Malkeet Singh S/o Surjan Singh is convicted for the offence of Section 376 I, 366, 363 IPC and respective sentences awarded are (i) seven years RI with fine Rs. 5000/- in default six months RI (ii) Five years RI with fine Rs. 2500 in default three months RI (ii) three years RI with fine Rs. 2500/- in default three months RI, all substantive sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved of this conviction and sentence, is this appeal. 2. The incident and events in short per prosecution and as unfolded in course of trial are that on October 20th, father of one K(PW/2) at 6 PM arriving at police station informed that youngest of his four daughters K 14-15 years is taking education in seventh and elder of her S married to accused Malkeet Singh, had come to parental house about 10 days ago and her husband accused Malkeet Singh also came 4-5 days earlier who in morning at 6-7 O clock of Monday enticed away K. Father PW/1 also informed that he watching crops of one Shankar lal was at field and wife PW/4 informed this to him at 9-10 O clock and then he while searching went to Sardargarh where Kuldeep PW/3 and Laxman informed of they having seen accused and K going together along canal. FIR bearning No. 121 Ex.P/1 registered by SHO PW/11 and ASI PW/12 commenced investigation. 3. On October 21st K was brought by father PW/1 at Police station and, making memos, her Salwar having some stains seized and sealed. She was medically examined by doctors PW/6 & PW/14. Physical examination report Ex.6,7 and age determination are 14, 15 & 16 - obtained was school record and keeping packet of the collected vaginal swab, Salwar etc delivered at FSL. Following other investigations, chargesheet submitted. Charged as above, appellant claimed trial. 4. Other prosecution witnesses examined are Smt. B PW/4, mother, PW/8, 9, 10 police personnels relating to keeping and delivering packets at FSL. PW/7 happens to be brother-in-law of PW/1 and Medical officer PW/10 medically examined accused. Appellant asserts that on the day of said incident, he was working in village Sardargarh at agricultural field of Mahaveer. Mahaveer DW/1 states so and also that he came to know that appellant was engaged to K but deceptively was married to elder sister of K so enmity followed and totally untrue case planted. 5. Appellant asserts that on the day of said incident, he was working in village Sardargarh at agricultural field of Mahaveer. Mahaveer DW/1 states so and also that he came to know that appellant was engaged to K but deceptively was married to elder sister of K so enmity followed and totally untrue case planted. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge arrived at conclusions of age of K between 16-18 years who is taken threateningly and threateningly the physical act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that per medical examination report and deposition of doctors, age of PW/2 was above 18 years. Submits that appellant was admittedly married to elder sister and firstly, not convincingly proved is such an incident. Secondly, even if any such then, on the face of it, per consent, thirdly that circumstances and events disclose tacit cannivance of parents as argues, because that elder sister of K was suffering mental and other deficiencies. Also submits that allegedly was going on foot to long distance around canal at 8-9 AM which disclose willingness of all including K. Lastly submits that substantial reasons are for reducing sentence to the extent of five years. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor supporting judgment states that age not above 16 years and even if assumed above 16 years even then much less than 18 years and act not with consent but threatening. 8. Giving all thoughtful consideration to raised contentions carefully gone through the record and judgment assailed. 9. For the age, three are sisters elder to PW/2 and immediate elder to PW/2 is married to appellant. In evidence also have come that marriage of elder to appellant solemnized about 2-3 months earlier. Per school record and proved by Head master PW/8, of primary school and recorded date of birth is 09.7.91. She was student of VIIth and education standard tallies with the age recorded. Radiologist Medical officer PW/14 examining on 24.10.05, also based on x-rays of radius ulna pelvis proving x-ray plates and report Ex.P/15, opined that age not less than 16 and more of 18. PW/4 states of elbow epiphysis fused and of radius and ulna closed but not fused and of iliac rest of pelvis appeared but not fused. Radiologist Medical officer PW/14 examining on 24.10.05, also based on x-rays of radius ulna pelvis proving x-ray plates and report Ex.P/15, opined that age not less than 16 and more of 18. PW/4 states of elbow epiphysis fused and of radius and ulna closed but not fused and of iliac rest of pelvis appeared but not fused. Women Medical officer PW/6 examined K on 22.10.05 states she of having 28 teeth and in her opinion, age between 14-16 years and also is stated by PW/14 variation of two years can be in her age - per school record birth date recorded is July, 1991 and incident of October, 2005. Given all these read with statements of father PW/1 and mother PW/4, the findings of learned Trial Judge of age being above 16 years and that she was below 18 years is not to be interfered. Ms. K PW/2 states that elder sister S and also husband of appellant were at their home and in morning around 6-6:30, and when parents were at agricultural fields and she sleeping in compound, appellant threatening asked her and took her with and when on way near canal Kuldeep and Laxman came across appellant threatening her again not to tell them or any. Per PW/2 she taken by appellant to his by his elder sister and there forcibly did sexual act as was done earlier at own home when she was threateningly taken by appellant. Versions of PW/2 is convincing one. Age definitely below 18 years. PW/2 and also PW/1 and 4 though denying so in their statement but stated in course of investigation of K's elder daughter married to appellant of being some what 'bholi' meaning somewhat who easily sways with talks, hence, and if so the assertion of PW/2 of forcible act against her wishes is fortified. PW/1 says and also so K PW/3 and L PW/7 that K and L having seen K and appellant going told so to PW/1. Maternal uncle PW/7 hearing of incident arrived at house of PW1 & 6 and all depose that they searching for K found her at Raisinghnagar station from where they took him to police station. SI PW/12 also stated so who prepared memos Ex.2,3, 4 and also sealed her Salwar. This packet was delivered at FSL and its reports Ex.P/13 speaks of worn cloth having semen stains. SI PW/12 also stated so who prepared memos Ex.2,3, 4 and also sealed her Salwar. This packet was delivered at FSL and its reports Ex.P/13 speaks of worn cloth having semen stains. As is observed, she by medical officer was examined physically on 22nd and by radiologist on 25th. Further significant is that on examination by PW/6 on October 22nd, report being P/6 injuries (i) abrasion 2.5 cm x 0.2 cm left of left breast (ii) abrasion linear 0.25 cm on rt hand were. Therefore, proved is the commission of offence of rape and conclusions leading to conviction and conviction is upheld. 10. Appellant is sentenced to seven years RI. Appellant was married to elder sister 2-3 months ago and for sister as above is, appellant seems to be imprisoned since about six years who per medical report then was about 21 years of age. Cumulatively taking all the circumstances stated by different witnesses, in the considered opinion of the Court, sentence of six years suffices. Appellant arrested in October, 2005, so far excluding remission, if any seems to be nearing completion of six years. However, different fines imposed and imprisonment in default remains intact. 11. Resultantly, reducing the sentence of imprisonment, this appeal is decided. 12. The conviction of the appellant for the offences of Sections 376, 366, 363 Indian Penal Code is affirmed. Sentence awarded of seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of Section 376(1) IPC is reduced to that of six years imprisonment. Sentence for the offence of Ss 366, 363 Indian Penal Code remains intact and also remains intact is fine imposed and imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Substantive sentences to run concurrently.Appeal partly allowed. *******