JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed Crl. A. No. 2354 of 2005 for enhancement of sentence imposed on first respondent/first accused and Crl. A. No. 2356 of 2005 is filed for modifying the judgment of conviction to convict respondents 1 and 2 (accused 1 and 2) for offences punishable under Sections 148, 508, 366A, 342 read with Section 149 IPC and convict accused No. 1 for an offence under Section 378 IPC. 2. These two criminal cases have arisen out of the judgment made in S.C. No. 131 of 2003 dated 24.8.2005 on the file of the Fast Track Sessions Judge VII, Bangalore City. 3. The brief facts giving raise to these appeals and case of the prosecution may be stated thus; Respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused Nos. 1 and 2”) along with accused Nos. 3 to 8 were committed to the trial Court to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 148, 506, 366, 366A, 342 read with Section 149 of IPC and accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, on the allegation that accused Nos. 1 to 6, being members of unlawful assembly and in furtherance with the common object of kidnapping the victim on. 27.9.2002 at about 9.00 a.m. kidnapped a minor girl (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’) and took her to various places, wherein victim was forced to marry accused No, 1. They had also threatened the victim to marry accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 had taken victim to different places and wrongfully confined her, Accused No, 1 had committed rape on victim. Accused No. 8 was a juvenile, a separate charge sheet was filed against him before the Juvenile Court. Accused No. 8 was absconding so also, accused No. 5. Therefore, case against accused 8 and 5 was separated. Accused No. 4 died during the pendency of trial. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried for the aforestated offences. 4. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 24 were examined, documents as per Exs. P1 to P31 and material objects M.Os. 1 to 18 were marked, 5. The defence of accused is one of total denial. Accused No. 4 died during the pendency of trial. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried for the aforestated offences. 4. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 24 were examined, documents as per Exs. P1 to P31 and material objects M.Os. 1 to 18 were marked, 5. The defence of accused is one of total denial. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for parties acquitted accused No. 2 of the aforestated offences and convicted accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and acquitted accused No, 1 for the rest of the offences as aforestated. Accused No. 1 has not filed an appeal challenging the judgment of conviction made against him for an offence punishable under Section 383 of IPC. 6. Accused 1 and 2 were served but they were not represented by any Counsel. Therefore, Smt. N.A. Sowbhagya was appointed as Amicus Curiae for respondents 1 and 2 in both the appeals. 7. We have heard Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State and Smt. N.A. Sowbhagya, learned Counsel/Amicus Curiae for respondents 1 and 2. 8. In brief, the case of the prosecution, inter se relationship of victim and some of the prosecution witnesses and accused may be stated thus: P.W. 1 Krishnamma is the maternal grand mother of victim. P.W. 2 Hemavathi is the mother of victim. P.W. 2 is the niece of P.W. 4 Srinivasa. P.W. 5 Prasanna Kumar is the cousin of victim. P.W. 14 Govindamma is the grand mother of accused No. 3 Srinivasa. Accused No. 5 S. Seetha is the daughter of the brother-in-law of P.W. 2. Accused No. 1 is the husband of accused No. 5. Accused No. 1 is the grand son of accused No. 4 Smt. Seethamma. Accused No. 2 is related to accused No. 1. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that during the year 2002, victim was aged about 14 years and she was studying in 9th Standard in Vijaya Bharathi Public School, Shampur Village within the jurisdiction of D.J. Halli Police Station, Bangalore North Taluk. On 27.9.2002, when the victim had gone to school, accused Nos. 1 to 5 induced her and took her to different places. Accused had wrongfully confined her. Accused No. 1 was forcing her to marry him. On 27.9.2002, when the victim had gone to school, accused Nos. 1 to 5 induced her and took her to different places. Accused had wrongfully confined her. Accused No. 1 was forcing her to marry him. Accused No. 1 had committed rape on victim, The accused had wrongfully confined victim in different places for a period of 24 days. Ultimately, accused No. 1 and victim were traced in a room in Vinayaka Nagar at Bangalore. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were all along abetting illegal acts committed by accused No. 1. At the first instance, P.W. 1 lodged a missing complaint. After learning about the information of her daughter was kidnapped by accused, P.W. 1 lodged first information and set the law into motion. During investigation, victim was subjected to medical examination. Some of the ornaments belonging to victim which were pledged by accused were recovered pursuant to voluntary statement made by accused No. 1 as per Ex. P28. Some of the incriminating articles were sent to F.S.L. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused 1 to 8. As already stated, accused No. 6 was juvenile, a separate charge sheet was filed against her before the Juvenile Court. Accused No. 4 died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, case against accused No. 4 abated. Accused 3 and 5 absconded and the case against them was separated. Ultimately, accused 1 and 2 faced trial and accused No. 2 was acquitted and accused No, 1 was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 388 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default sentence. 10. The learned trial Judge has assigned the following reasons for acquitting accused No. 2 for all the offences which he was charged and also for acquitting accused No. 1 for offences punishable under Sections 342, 508 and 376 of IPC: (i) the evidence on record does not reveal that accused No. 2 had in any way abetted the kidnapping of victim by accused No. 1. (ii) the presence of accused No. 2 during the period of stay with accused No. 1 is not proved by consistent and cogent evidence. (ii) the presence of accused No. 2 during the period of stay with accused No. 1 is not proved by consistent and cogent evidence. The evidence of victim is not sufficient to prove the involvement of accused No. 2, (iii) the medical evidence is not sufficient to hold that accused No. 1 had committed rape on victim. The evidence of victim is not sufficient to prove that she was forcibly seduced or she was forcibly threatened to marry accused No. 1. In fact, accused No. 1 had not married victim. (iv) In the absence of oral evidence in proof of contents of the School Admission Register Extract and the copy of Transfer Certificate, such documents are not sufficient to prove that during the period of occurrence victim was less than 16 years of age. 11. As this is the first appeal against judgment of acquittal, we have to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 342, 506, 366A read with Section 34 of IPC and also an offence under Section 378 of IPC against accused No. 1. 12. Before adverting to the evidence of close relatives of victim, medical officers and other witnesses, it is necessary for us to appreciate the evidence relating to the age of victim to arrive at a conclusion as to whether victim was aged less than 16 years or she was aged more than 16 years. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that victim was studying 9th Standard in Vijaya Bharathi School of Shampur village, The investigation officer, apart from collecting the school admission register extract marked as per Ex. P28 and the transfer certificate marked as Ex. P27 wherein the date of birth of victim is shown as 6.11.1988, had not bothered to examine the witnesses to prove these documents. These documents cannot be read as per se evidence. In order to rely upon these documents as evidence in proof of age, persons who had made entries in the aforestated documents or the persons who were in charge of these documents should have been examined before the trial Court. The investigation officer has not bothered to cite the authors of these documents as witnesses by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of authors of Exs. The investigation officer has not bothered to cite the authors of these documents as witnesses by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of authors of Exs. P26 and P27 is not available. Therefore, we are left with the other evidences such as the evidence of mother of victim, opinion evidence given by P.W. 16 Dr. Bheemappa Havanur and also medical evidence given by P.W. 15 Dr. G. Sunanda Bai. The mother of victim had deposed that victim was born somewhere in the month of June 1988. Her evidence is vague. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on her evidence. In fact, P.W. 2-mother of victim had deposed that victim was born during the month of June 1998. However, she does not remember the date. As the victim had been admitted to school in fact, she was studying in 9th Standard when the incident took place. The prosecution should have proved the contents of school admission register and the transfer certificate to prove the date of birth of victim. 13. In the circumstances, we are left with the evidence of P.W. 16 Dr. Bheemappa Havanur and the evidence of P.W. 15 Dr. G. Sunanda Bai. At the relevant time, P.W. 16 Bheeniappa Havanur was the Assistant Professor of Forensic Science in Bowring Hospital. On 18.10.2002, P.W. 16 examined victim. He conducted her physical and dental examination. He had also sent her for radiological examination. After receiving the respective reports of her examination, P.W. 16 opined that victim was aged between 15 to 17 years and her average age could be taken as 18 years. During cross examination, the evidence of P.W. 16 has not been seriously controverted apart from putting certain hypothetical questions. The opinion of P.W. 16 is reflected in Ex. P17. We do not find any reasons to suspect or discard the evidence of P.W. 16. 14. At the relevant time, P.W. 15 Smt. Sunanda Bai was working as a Lecturer in OBG Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital. On 18.10.2002 at about 9.20 p.m., P.W. 32 examined victim. The other aspects relating to the examination of victim by P.W. 16 will be dealt with in the later part of the judgment. 14. At the relevant time, P.W. 15 Smt. Sunanda Bai was working as a Lecturer in OBG Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital. On 18.10.2002 at about 9.20 p.m., P.W. 32 examined victim. The other aspects relating to the examination of victim by P.W. 16 will be dealt with in the later part of the judgment. However, regarding the age, we find that during cross examination by P.W. 15 by the learned Counsel for accused, it was suggested to P.W. 15 that a girl aged about 18 or 14 years if subjected to forcible sexual intercourse she would sustain injuries on her private parts, P.W. 15 has categorically stated that there were certain injuries on the private parts of victim. The victim was studying in 9th Standard. The evidence of P.W. 16 Dr. Bheemappa Havanur regarding assessment of age of victim does not suffer from any discrepancy. The investigating officer for the reasons best known to him had not bothered to examine the authors of the school admission register marked as Ex. P26 and transfer certificate marked as Ex. P27. Therefore, taking into consideration, evidence of P.W. 15 and P.W. 16 and contents of Ex. P17, we hold that victim was aged about 18 years at the time of incident. 15. P.W. .2 Hemavathi (mother of victim) is the daughter of the elder sister of wife of P.W. 4. P.W. 4 had deposed of his relationship with P.W. 2 and he had deposed that the father of victim namely Kempanna died after the incident. P.W. 4 deposed that on 27.9.2002, P.W. 2, Hemavathi and her husband Kempanna came to his house and told him that victim had gone to school in the morning and did not return back and P.W. 2 advised them to lodge a complaint with police. On 28.9.2002, P.W. 2 and her husband lodged a missing complaint. P.W. 4, the parents of victim and other relatives tried to trace victim but the victim could not be traced. On 18.10.2002, accused No. 2 Kumara along with his father came to the house of P.W. 4 and informed that first accused had kept victim in a house at Vinayaka Nagar, Bangalore. Accused No. 2 Kumara took P.W. 4 to police station and informed the matter. The Police Inspector sent two police Constables along with Kumara, accused No. 2 and P.W. 4, Srinivas. Accused No. 2 Kumara took P.W. 4 to police station and informed the matter. The Police Inspector sent two police Constables along with Kumara, accused No. 2 and P.W. 4, Srinivas. Accused No. 2 took P.W. 4 and police constables to a house near Vieayaka Nagara. Accused No. 1 and victim were present in that house. Accused No. 1 was still sleeping. They apprehended accused No. 1 and handed over him to the custody of jurisdictional police. The evidence of P.W. 4 has remained uncontroverted. The learned Counsel for accused had not cross examined P.W. 4. 16. We also see from the records that the evidence of P.W. 5, Prasaeea Kumar has not been controverted, P.W. 5 was known to the family members of victim and also the victim. P.W. 5 has deposed that from the year 1996 to 2003, he was running an STD Booth In Shampura village, at a distance of about 150 feet from the house of P.W. 2. P.W. 5 deposed that on 30.9.1992 at about 9.45 or 9.50 p.m., victim contacted P.W. 5 over phone. P.W. 5 received the call through the phone installed in the STD booth. The victim informed P.W. 5 that she had left her house. She was not able to express her feelings to her parents. P.W. 5 chastised victim and told her to return home. On 5.10.2002, during the early hours of the day, he received a phone call, but it was disconnected. On the same day, at about 8.80 a.m., he received a phone call from a boy who told P.W. 5 that he had married victim and the parents’ of victim need not search for victim and if any police complaints are lodged, they should be withdrawn. P.W. 5 informed the matter to P.W. 2 and her husband. P.W. 5 has given the number of STD booth PCO as 591589.The evidence of P.W. 5 has not been controverted. The learned Counsel for accused has not cross examined P.W. 5. 17. P.W. 8 Girijamma was a resident of Vinayaka Nagar and she has two houses. P.W. 8 has deposed that about 8 years prior to 16.8.2005, accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached her and requested her house for rent for a short period, P.W. 8 received a sum of Rs. 500/- as advance and let out the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. P.W. 8 has deposed that about 8 years prior to 16.8.2005, accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached her and requested her house for rent for a short period, P.W. 8 received a sum of Rs. 500/- as advance and let out the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. They stayed in the house for a period of one week. P.W. 8 had gone to Horanadu and by the time she could return, accused 1 and 2 had vacated the house. P.W. 8 was declared as hostile witness for resailing from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. During cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, P.W. 8 had deposed that accused 1 and 2 had also brought a girl and when P.W. 8 enquired accused 1 and 2, accused No. 1 told that the girl is his wife. That girl was morosive and she appeared to be scared. When the girl wanted to tell something to P.W. 8, accused No. 1 prevented her. P.W. 8 developed suspicion on accused and told them to vacate the house forthwith. Thereafter, she went to Horanadu and by the time she returned back, she learnt that the police had visited her house and took victim and accused. During cross examination by the learned Counsel for Public Prosecutor, P.W. 8 has admitted that the girl whom the accused had brought was aged about 16 to 17 years. Thus, we find the evidence of P.W. 8 has not been seriously controverted. Though she has been treated as hostile witness, the evidence given by her in cross examination is consistent with the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 had kept victim in a house at Vieayaka Nagar. Even otherwise, we do not find anything on record indicating the hostility between accused and P.W. 8, P.W. 8 had no motives to falsely implicate the accused. 18. P.W. 10 Jolaram was running a pawn broker shop in Wilson Garden. P.W. 10 deposed that two years prior to 22.3.2005, the first accused had visited his shop and pledged one pair of gold hangings and gold mati for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. After 15 days, police brought first accused to his shop, at the instance of first accused. P.W. 10 returned the ornaments pledged by first accused to the police. P.W. 10 has produced the receipt of pledge as per Ex. P9. 3,000/-. After 15 days, police brought first accused to his shop, at the instance of first accused. P.W. 10 returned the ornaments pledged by first accused to the police. P.W. 10 has produced the receipt of pledge as per Ex. P9. P.W. 10 has also identified the signature of accused No. 1 on the carbon copy of the receipt. P.W. 10 has identified the ornaments as M.Os.7 and 8. The cross examination of P.W. 10 by learned Counsel for accused is suggestive in nature. During cross examination of P.W. 10, nothing is brought on record that P.W. 10 had given false evidence or accused No. 1 had not pledged gold ornaments marked as M.Os.7 and 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that after the arrest of accused No. 1, he gave voluntary statement marked as per Ex. P28. The Investigating Officer has given evidence in proof of recovery of the gold ornaments from the shop of P.W. 10, pursuant to the voluntary statement made by accused No, 1 on 8.12.2002, It is also necessary to state that gold ornaments marked as M.Os.7 and 8 were identified by the mother of victim, so also by victim. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that accused had pledged the gold ornaments of victim in the pawn broker shop run by P.W. 10 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and these gold ornaments were recovered on the information volunteered by accused No. 1. 19. P.W. 14, Govindamma is a native and resident of Kerugandhur, Mandya District, P.W. 14 is related to accused No,4. P.W. 14 has deposed that accused No,4 was her senior aunt, P.W. 14 has deposed that about two years prior to 6.4.2005, accused No. 8 and accused No. 4 had brought a girl to the house of P.W. 14 at Kerugandhur and also told that they had secured some job near her house and, therefore, requested P.W. 14 to permit them to stay in her house. When P.W. 14 questioned accused No. 4 Seethamma, she told that the girl was her grand daughter, P.W. 14 stated that they stayed in her house for a period of three days. Later, she came to know about the case from the police. The police prepared a mahazer as per Ex. P8 near her house and she has affixed her LTM to the mahazer. Later, she came to know about the case from the police. The police prepared a mahazer as per Ex. P8 near her house and she has affixed her LTM to the mahazer. The evidence of P.W. 14 that accused No. 1 along with other accused had stayed in the house of P.W. 14 with a girl, who was later identified as victim has not been controverted. There is no cross examination of P.W. 14 by the learned Counsel for accused. 20. Now we will advert to the evidence of victim-P.W. 19 in the background of the evidence of the aforestated witnesses to confirm whether the evidence of victim finds corroboration from the evidence of aforestated witnesses. The victim has deposed that P.W. 2 Hemavathi is her mother and Rempanna was her father. Her father died during the pendency of the case, The victim has deposed that accused No. 5 Seethamma is the cousin sister of victim. The victim knew the other accused namely accused Nos. 3, 5 and 8. The victim has deposed that accused No,5 is the wife of accused No, 1, The victim has deposed; that on 27.9.2002 at about 8.80 a.m., she left the house and reached her school. At that time, accused No, 1 and his wife accused No. 5 approached victim and victim kept her school bag in her school and returned back as sometime was available for her to get back to the school. Accused Nos. 1 and 5 took the victim and they were joined by other accused. When victim enquired accused No. 1, accused No. 5 called her to accompany as they have some work. The victim was taken in an autorickshaw to Majestic bus station, where accused No. 4 Seethainma (since deceased) was present. Accused No. 1 sent back his wife (accused No. 5) and accused No. 8 and thereafter accused Nos. 1 to 4 and victim traveled in a bus and reached Mandya. Accused 1 to 4 took victim to the house of their relatives and they stayed there for a period of four days. As victim was wearing school uniform, accused No. 4 brought a pair of dress when victim was staying in the house at Mandya, Accused No. 1 was forcing victim to marry him. Accused No. 1 committed rape on her. They stayed there for four days. As victim was wearing school uniform, accused No. 4 brought a pair of dress when victim was staying in the house at Mandya, Accused No. 1 was forcing victim to marry him. Accused No. 1 committed rape on her. They stayed there for four days. Thereafter, accused No. 1 kept her in a hut, later victioi was taken to Kargal by accused 1 to 4. She was taken to the house of their relatives. All along accused i to 4 were threatening victim. When they were in Kargal bus stand, victim tried to contact P.W. 5 Prasanna Kumar through his phone No. 5915898. Before she could talk to P.W. 5, accused snatched the receiver from her hand and disconnected the phone. Accused No. 1 was all along forcing victim to marry him. Thereafter, victim was taken to some other place and they stayed in a house, details of which were not known to her. Thereafter, victim was brought to Bangalore and she was kept In a house at Vinayaka Nagara. Accused was committing rape on her. Accused No. 1 pleaded that he had no money and took the gold hangings and ear studs of victim and pledged them with a pawn broker on 18.10.2002, The accused again forced her to many, but the victim refused. On the same day, the police came there and took back victim and accused to the police station. The victim was subjected to medical examination In the Bowring hospital, her under garments were seized by the Investigating Officer. During cross examination of P.W. 19, an effort was made to establish that victim was a consenting party for what was being done to her by accused No. 1. An attempt was also made to establish that the victim had left her house and she was in the company of accused on her volition. 21. P.W. 2 mother of victim has given evidence about the missing report lodged by her and also about the report lodged against accused. P.W. 2 has deposed about the gold ornaments which the victim had on her person, when she left the house. After victim was traced, P.W. 2 has identified the ornaments recovered on the information volunteered by accused No. 1. P.W. 2 has deposed about the gold ornaments which the victim had on her person, when she left the house. After victim was traced, P.W. 2 has identified the ornaments recovered on the information volunteered by accused No. 1. Thus, the evidence of victim that accused No. 1 had induced her to leave her house and accompany him for which purpose, accused No. 1 had made use of accused Nos. 4 and 5 Is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The attempt made by the victim to contact P.W. 5 over phone would establish that victim was being forced by accused No. 1 to marry him and she was not staying with accused No. 1 on her volition. 22. The evidence of P.W. 4 that accused No. 1 had kept victim in a room at Vinavaka Nagar. Accused No,2 informed the same to P.W. 4 and later P.W. 4, accused No. 2 went with the police to that house and brought victim and accused No. 1 has not been controverted. Above all, victim had no motives to falsely implicate accused No. 1. The evidence of P.W. 10 that accused No. 1 had pledged gold ornaments of victim and later they were recovered by the police and such recovery was pursuant to voluntary statement given by accused No. 1 does not suffer from any discrepancy. The gold ornaments marked as M.Os.7 and 8 were identified not only by the victim but also by her mother-P.W. 2. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 2 and victim finds corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses that accused No, 1 had kidnapped victim with an intention to force her to marry him and also seduced her for illicit intercourse with him. 23. The medical evidence given by P.W. 15 Dr. G. Sunanda Bai relates examination of victim in Bowring hospital at Bangalore on 18.10.2002. P.W. 15 has deposed that on examination of victim, she found the following: “There was an abrasion on her upper lip and swelling of the lower lip. P.W. 15 subjected her to further examination and collected the specimens as follows: (a) under garment of that girl (b) public hair (c) (1) Vaginal swab collecting from Posterior Fomix (2) Servical swab (3) Swab from lateral Fornix Thereafter, subjected her to Forensic Department for age estimation. On examination of the aforesaid three specimen, P.W. 15 found that there were no Seminoal stains and no spermatozoa. On examination of the aforesaid three specimen, P.W. 15 found that there were no Seminoal stains and no spermatozoa. On Volva Vaginal examination, P.W. 15 found that her hymn was ruptured and the vagina was admitting two fingers. On the overall examination of the said girl, I am of the opinion that she was used to an act like that of sexual intercourse. There was no recent evidence of coitus, ‘recent’ according to P.W. 15 means 24 hours prior to the time of examination.” During cross-examination of P.W. 15, it is suggested that if the girl aged about 18 or 14 years and is subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, she would sustain injuries on her private parts, P.W. 15 has deposed that such injuries were found in the private parts of victim girl of the instant case. Added to this, the evidence of the Officer from F.S.L namely P.W. 17-Suresh Gavankar proves that the under garments of victim were blood stained. 24. In the circumstances, the case of the prosecution that the victim was kidnapped by accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 not only forced her to marry but also seduced her to have sexual intercourse with him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 25. The evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding age of the victim at the time of incident is not sufficient to hold that the victim, was less than 18 years of age. The evidence of P.W. 15 is sufficient to hold that the victim was aged more than 16 years and less than 17 years of age. 26. In the discussion made supra, we have referred to other circumstances. Therefore, we hold that the victim was a minor and accused No. 1 by inducing a minor girl (victim) and by forcing her to marry him and by seducing her to have sexual intercourse with him committed an offence punishable under Section 388 I.P.C. We extend the benefit of doubt regarding an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C., as the victim was not less than 16 years of age at the time of incident and there is no positive evidence to prove that the accused had committed sexual intercourse on the victim much against her consent. 27. 27. From the evidence on record, it is proved that the victim was a minor girl and she was induced by accused No. 1 to leave her place and visit several places. Accused No, 1 forced victim to have illicit intercourse with him. 28. As regards accused No. 2, there is no consistent evidence. It is the case of prosecution that accused No. 2 also had aided accused No. 1 to kidnap victim when she was near her school. The evidence on record is not consistent about the presence and participation of accused No. 2. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W. 4-Srinivasa that accused No. 2-Kumara and his father told P.W. 4 about stay of accused No, 1 and victim in a house near Vinayakanagar and the conduct of accused No,2 accompanying P.W. 4 to the police station to inform the matter to the police and showing the house to police and P.W. 4 would create a reasonable doubt as to the participation of accused No. 2 or accused No. 2 aiding accused No, 1 in commission of above illegal acts. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No. 2 beyond reasonable doubt. 29. In the discussion made supra, we have held the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 386 I.P.C. 30. The learned trial Judge without properly appreciating the evidence of victim and other witnesses in proper perspective and by misreading the medical evidence has held that the victim was not subjected to sexual intercourse. The learned trial Judge has ignored the evidence of prosecution, which would prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 had kidnapped the victim, a minor girl and compelled her to marry him and also seduced her to illicit intercourse. 31. The first accused had kidnapped the victim from lawful custody, accused No. 1 had taken her to different places and also seduced her to have illicit intercourse with him and thereby committed an offence under Section 368 I.P.C., which is punishable for imprisonment for a period of 10 years or with fine. 31. The first accused had kidnapped the victim from lawful custody, accused No. 1 had taken her to different places and also seduced her to have illicit intercourse with him and thereby committed an offence under Section 368 I.P.C., which is punishable for imprisonment for a period of 10 years or with fine. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances and also bearing in mind that the accused do not have criminal antecedents, we deem it proper to sentence the first accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and maintain the fine imposed by the trial Court. 32. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 2856 of 2005 filed against acquittal of accused No. 2 for an offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 2354 of 2005 is accepted in part. The judgment of conviction made by the trial Court is modified. Accused No. 1 is convicted of an offence punishable under Section 386 I.P.C, Accused No. 1 is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 506, 366A, 342 and 378 I.P.C. Accused No. 1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years. The fine imposed by the trial Court is confirmed. The accused shall pay the fine amount and he shall surrender to undergo remaining period of sentence of imprisonment. We fix the remuneration of Smt. Soubhagya N.A.-Amicus Currie at Rs. 7,000/-. Office is directed to send back the records along with copy of this judgment to secure the accused and implement the sentence in terms of this judgment.