JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO. J.—This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 15.12.2006 passed in S.C. No. 28/2006 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Kolar, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 343 and 376 of IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.6.2005 at about 8.00 p.m. the accused Vijaya Kumar kidnapped CW2-Ambika, the minor daughter of CW1-Anandappa from near her house at Goramadugu Village, Sidlaghatta taluk with an intention to marry her against her will and thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 has wrongfully confined the victim in the house of accused No. 5-Munilakshmamma in Kargil area Chintamani Town between 20.6.2005 to 29.6.2005 and thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 343 of IPC. It is the further case of the prosecution that between 20.6.2005 and 29.6.2005 accused No. 1 Vijaya Kumar committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim Ambika in the house of accused No. 5-Munilakshmamma in Kargil area, Chintamani Town and thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 2 to 5 have abetted the accused in kidnapping the victim and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 114 read with 366 and 34 of IPC. After the accused was secured before the Court, the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 17 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. Defence of the accused was one of total denial. The learned Sessions Judge having heard the learned counsel for the accused and the State held that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused of the offences charged by the State. The State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal has filed this appeal. 3. Heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Addl. SPP for the State and Sri B. Ravindra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 4. Learned Addl. SPP submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses more particularly, P.Ws. The State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal has filed this appeal. 3. Heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Addl. SPP for the State and Sri B. Ravindra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 4. Learned Addl. SPP submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses more particularly, P.Ws. 1 and 3, who are the parents of the victim-P.W. 2, clearly establishes that P.W. 2 was kidnapped and was made to move from her parents house to the house of accused No. 5, where she was kept in unlawful custody for 9 days from 20.6.2005 to 29.6.2005 in the house of accused No. 5-Munilakshmamma and that when P.W. 1 visited the house of accused No. 5, he had seen the victim in the house of accused N.5. Hence he submits that the prosecution has proved that P.W. 2 was in the house of accused No. 5, when P.W. 1 visited the house of accused No. 5 and therefore, prosecution has proved that the accused have kept P.W. 2 in unlawful custody in the house of accused No. 5. It is further submitted by him that the prosecution has further examined P.W. 2-Ambika and P.W. 17 Dr. Usha Vanishree to show that P.W. 2 was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by accused No. 1-Vijaya Kumar and that the evidence of these two witnesses itself is sufficient to hold that accused No. 1 has committed an offence of rape against the victim P.W. 2. It is submitted by him that as per the evidence of P.W. 12 Nagarathnamma, the victim was born on 15.6.1991 and the victim was aged about 14 years 5 days as on the date of the offence and hence he submits that consent is immaterial insofar as the offence under Section 376 of IPC is concerned and having regard to the evidence of P.W. 17, the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 376 of IPC against accused No. 1. It is also submitted by him that having regard to the fact that the victim is a minor girl, evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly establishes that she was taken away from the house of her lawful guardians viz., P.Ws. 1 and 3, with an intention to force her to marry accused No. 1 and therefore, offence under Section 366 of IPC is clearly made out. 1 to 3 clearly establishes that she was taken away from the house of her lawful guardians viz., P.Ws. 1 and 3, with an intention to force her to marry accused No. 1 and therefore, offence under Section 366 of IPC is clearly made out. Hence, he submits that the order of acquittal is contrary to the settled principles of law and submits that accused may be convicted by reversing the order of acquittal. 5. Sri B. Ravindra, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos. 1 to 5, on the other hand, submits that there was a glaring discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 insofar as sexual intercourse is concerned, at the time of offence with regard to the place, where P.W. 2 was residing at the time of alleged offence. It is further submitted by him that evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 i.e., the father and mother of the victim respectively is contrary insofar as the minor P.W. 2 having left the house. It is his submission that the evidence of P.W. 1 is to the effect that he was in the shop till about 6.00 p.m. as on the date of incident and his wife came to the shop and thereafter they found that their daughter P.W. 2 has not reached the house. However, their daughter has not come to the shop and thereafter his wife came to the shop and asked him as to whether his daughter has come to the shop, whereas the evidence of P.W. 3 is to the effect that after coming home in the evening, P.W. 3 sent P.W. 2 to the shop, who had just come to the house. However, her daughter has not come back, neither her husband had come home. By that time, it was about 7.00 p.m. and she thereafter went to the shop and found that her daughter had not reached the shop. Hence he submits that the evidence of both the parents regarding missing of their daughter is contrary to each other and therefore, the very genuineness of incident had been not properly placed by the prosecution before the Court. It is his further submission that the evidence of P.W. 1 is to the effect that when he went to the house of accused No. 5, his daughter was found there, whereas the prosecution case is that the victim-the daughter of P.Ws. It is his further submission that the evidence of P.W. 1 is to the effect that when he went to the house of accused No. 5, his daughter was found there, whereas the prosecution case is that the victim-the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 3 was found in the local bus-stand on 29.6.2005. Even this evidence regarding finding of victim is contrary to each other and therefore, there is serious doubt regarding the alleged incident as having happened. It is further submitted that P.W. 7-Devirappa in his evidence has deposed that there is a case pending against him for having committed rape on a relative of accused No. 4-Narasimha Murthy and with this motive, P.Ws. 1 to 3 have falsely implicated the accused in this incident. It is also submitted by him that the house where the alleged rape has been committed by the accused does not have any rooms as found by the investigating officer P.W. 15-H.S. Jagadeesh and as noted in the mahazar Ex.P3. It is submitted that when there is no room, the question of committing rape does not arise and the entire case of prosecution is a false story concocted for the purpose of filing a false case against the accused. It is also further submitted by him that though P.W. 17 states that P.W. 2 was subjected to sexual intercourse, the materials collected from the person of victim P.W. 2 were subjected to FSL examination and the result of such examination is negative in nature. It is submitted by him that the floor on which the victim was alleged to have been subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused is a rough surface and if at all, there was any resistance by P.W. 2, there would have been some injuries on the person of P.W. 2, but P.W. 17 does not speak of any injuries on the person of P.W. 2, which also improbabilises the case of P.W. 2 that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Under the circumstances, it is submitted by him that the trial Court having rightly appreciated the evidence on record has found that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and submits that this appellate Court may not convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction of the accused, unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse or against the settled principles of law or contrary to the evidence on record and there being no such grounds in this case, the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge may be affirmed by the dismissing the appeal. 6. The prosecution in this case commenced with P.W. 1-Anandappa, who is the father of the victim P.W. 2, lodging a complaint on 27.6.2005 before the Siddlaghatta Rural Police Station. In his complaint it is stated by him that his daughter by name Ambika aged about 15 years was sent to his shop from the house at about 8.00 p.m. on 20.6.2005 to send back his wife to the house, since even after 9.00 p.m., his wife did not come to the house, he went to the shop and found that his daughter has not reached the shop also and was missing. Even after searching at various places, he could not trace his daughter. On 27.6.2005 in the morning at about 10.00 a.m. he came to know that his daughter Ambika was taken by Vijaya Kumar for the purpose of marrying her by kidnapping her. This he came to know from the villagers and he also came to know that alongwith Vijaya Kumar his father Anjanappa, his relative Nararaju s/o Narayana Venkatesha s/o Muthuru Muniyappa and Gangaraju s/o Pilladasappa and Srinivas and others had kidnapped his daughter and had kept her in the house of accused No. 5-Munilakshmamma w/o Reddappa. On coming to know of the same he went to the house of accused No. 5. At that time, accused No. 5 threatened them and informed them that accused No. 1 is going to marry her and therefore, asked them to leave the house and hence he has requested the police for finding out his daughter and rescue her from the hands of the accused. The Sidlaghatta police registered a case in Crime No. 94/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366(A) read with 34 IPC. The Sidlaghatta police registered a case in Crime No. 94/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366(A) read with 34 IPC. P.W. 15-H.S. Jagadish, Inspector of Police, registered the above case and started investigation and on 29.6.2005 victim P.W. 2 was found in the local bus-stand, she was secured and brought to the police station, where after she was questioned and she has disclosed that at the instigation of A2 to A5, A1 committed rape on her and therefore, the police added Section 376 of IPC to the earlier registered FIR. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. 7. During the trial, P.Ws. 1 and 3 have deposed before the Court regarding the missing of their daughter and later the police informed them of tracing their daughter. P.W. 2 has stated before them that Vijaya Kumar has pressed her mouth and kidnapped her and thereafter subjected her to rape in the house of accused No. 5. P.W. 2-Ambika is the victim. P.W. 2 has stated that on the date of incident she was forcibly taken by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and at that time, accused No. 1 closed her mouth and she was taken to Y. Hunasenahalli Station Village and from there she was taken to Chintamani to the house of accused No. 5, they also threatened her that she would be killed if she would resist, they reached the house of accused No. 5 at about 10.00 to 10.30 pm. Accused No. 1 remained in the house. It is stated by her that in the course of her stay, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by accused No. 1 in the house of accused No. 5 and also subsequently for 9 days when she was kept in the house of accused No. 5. It is also stated that she has been threatened by accused Nos. 1 to 5 and accused No. 5 was keeping a constant watch on her. However, on a day when accused Nos. 1 and 5 were not present in the house, she came to Chintamani bus-stop and at that time, police identified her and took her to the Sidlaghatta Police Station. 1 to 5 and accused No. 5 was keeping a constant watch on her. However, on a day when accused Nos. 1 and 5 were not present in the house, she came to Chintamani bus-stop and at that time, police identified her and took her to the Sidlaghatta Police Station. In the cross-examination it is suggested that since there is a case against P.W. 7-Daveerappa for having committed rape on one Nagamma, a relative of accused No. 4, this false case has been filed by using her name for which P.W. 2 has stated that she does not know anything about the said case. It is also suggested that P.W. 7 was also assaulted by the public in connection with the said case for which she has stated that she is not aware of the same. It is also further suggested to her that her sister viz., one Vijaya Lakshmi has an illegal affair with one Nagesha s/o Chikka Kalegowda However, the said suggestion has been denied by P.W. 2. It is also further suggested that she had illegal affair with another boy, however, she has denied the said suggestion also. So far as the forcible sexual intercourse is concerned there is no other cross-examination in the evidence of P.W. 2 and nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of P.W. 2 regarding the said aspect. However, it has been elicited that she has become mature six months prior to the said incident. 8. P.W. 4-Krishnappa, P.W. 5-Venkataravana and P.W. 6 Narayanaswamy as also P.W. 7 Daveerappa have turned hostile to the prosecution and P.W. 7-Daveerappa is none other than the co-brother of P.W. 1. His evidence before the Court is derived from the information given by P.W. 1. However, he has admitted in the cross-examination that there is a rape case against him alleging that he has raped one Nagamma and the said Nagamma is a relative of accused No. 4-Narasimha Murthy. It is suggested that in view of the said pending case against him, the present case has been lodged, which suggestion has been denied by P.W. 2. P.W. 9-G.M. Munikrishna is a signatory to Ex.P2-Spot Mahazar, which is a panchanama regarding the scene of occurrence. P.W. 10-K.S. Lakshmi is the women police constable, who has found the victim P.W. 2 in the Chintamani bus-stand and secured her. P.W. 11 Dr. P.W. 9-G.M. Munikrishna is a signatory to Ex.P2-Spot Mahazar, which is a panchanama regarding the scene of occurrence. P.W. 10-K.S. Lakshmi is the women police constable, who has found the victim P.W. 2 in the Chintamani bus-stand and secured her. P.W. 11 Dr. K.V. Umesh, has stated that on 1.7.2005 he has examined the accused Vijaya Kumar and found that he was competent to have sexual intercourse. He has also stated that there were two abrasions of 10 cms above the left nipple of accused No. 1, when he has examined the accused No. 1 on 1.7.2005. He has issued a certificate as per Ex.P8. It is in the evidence of P.W. 11-Dr. K.V. Umesh that if the victim were to resist an attempt of rape by any person, there were possibilities of scratches caused on the private parts of the person/victim. P.W. 12-Nagarathnamma is the head mistress of Government primary school, who has issued Ex.P9 which document indicates that the date of birth of the victim is 15.6.1991. In the cross-examination she has stated that the said date of birth was given by one Venkataswamy bin Dodda Muniyappa, Keshavara. However, she has admitted that she has not enquired the parents of the victim, regarding the date of birth of the victim. P.W. 13-Srinivasa is a signatory to Ex.P3, which is the panchanama of the scene of occurrence. P.W. 14-Naseer Ahmed is the constable, who found the victim P.W. 2 in the Chintamani Private bus-stand on 29.6.2005. P.W. 15-H.S. Jagadeesh is the sub-inspector of Sidlaghatta Police Station, who on receipt of a complaint from P.W. 1 registered a case in Crime No. 94/2005 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) of IPC read with 34 of IPC and forwarded the FIR to the Court. He has also directed the staff to trace the missing girl and on finding the girl by his staff he has recorded the statement of the victim and subsequently filed the case before the Court after adding Section 376 of IPC to the earlier case. P.W. 16-Dasappa is the Inspector of Police, who has conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against all the five accused persons. P.W. 17-Dr. Usha Vanishree, has examined P.W. 2 on 29.6.2005 and found that there was rupture of hymen admitting two fingers easily, but there was no laceration or bleeding. She has issued medical certificate as per Ex.P.13. P.W. 16-Dasappa is the Inspector of Police, who has conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against all the five accused persons. P.W. 17-Dr. Usha Vanishree, has examined P.W. 2 on 29.6.2005 and found that there was rupture of hymen admitting two fingers easily, but there was no laceration or bleeding. She has issued medical certificate as per Ex.P.13. Ex.P.12 is the intimation to the police regarding her examination of P.W. 2. 9. It is seen from the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution that the learned Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and has recorded an order of acquittal. 10. On careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we find that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is neither consistent nor cogent and the delay in filing the complaint is not properly explained. Further it is seen that when P.W. 1 visited the house of accused No. 5 he found P.W. 2 in the house of accused No. 5. If at all, P.W. 2 was seen in the house of accused No. 5 then nothing prevented him from immediately filing the complaint and securing the custody of his daughter P.W. 2. P.W. 1 was not alone when he went to the house of accused No. 5, he had gone with two more friends from his village and therefore, nothing prevented him from securing the custody of P.W. 2 even by negotiations. On the other hand, prosecution has projected that the victim was found at Chintamani Bus-stand and police traced her in the bus-stand, which story does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. So far as the offence of rape is concerned, if we carefully go through the evidence of P.W. 2, the ingredients of offence of rape has not been made out. The evidence does not indicate that sexual intercourse has been committed by the accused No. 1 on P.W. 2 and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused No. 1 has committed offence under Section 376 of IPC. Therefore we find no illegality or irregularity committed in the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The evidence does not indicate that sexual intercourse has been committed by the accused No. 1 on P.W. 2 and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused No. 1 has committed offence under Section 376 of IPC. Therefore we find no illegality or irregularity committed in the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 343 is concerned the evidence of P.W. 2 that she was kept forcibly in the house by A1 and A5 by keeping a constant and continuous watch on her is not acceptable and therefore, the allegation that accused No. 1 had kept P.W. 2 in the custody of accused No. 5 cannot be believed and therefore, the further allegation that accused had kept P.W. 2 in the illegal confinement is also not believable and does not inspire confidence in us to hold the case under Section 343 of IPC against the accused. So far as offence under Section 366 of IPC is concerned, we find that P.W. 12-Nagarathnamma has issued a certificate as per Ex.P9 which is on a piece of paper and it is not in the format of a birth certificate. No reliance can be placed on Ex.P9 so far as the age of the victim is concerned to hold that the date of birth of victim is 15.6.1991. Further in the cross-examination P.W. 12-Nagarathnamma has stated that the details of Ex.P9 is derived from one of the relative of the candidate and she has not enquired about the truthfulness of the said date of birth from her parents. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has not proved the exact age of the victim to state that the victim was a minor. No reliance can be placed on Ex.P9 to hold that the accused was guilty of the offence under Section 366 of IPC. Further from the evidence of P.W. 2 it cannot be held that the accused had forced her to come out against her will for marrying with accused No. 1. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not brought out the material to bring the act of the accused within Section 366 of IPC and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed an order of acquittal. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not brought out the material to bring the act of the accused within Section 366 of IPC and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed an order of acquittal. We find the order of acquittal is neither perverse nor against the settled principles of law, but is based on the evidence on record. 11. In that view of the matter, there are no merits in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds executed by the accused are hereby discharged.