JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals present a challenge to the judgment and order dated 20.2.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, Camp at Bayana (Bharatpur) in Sessions Case No. 108/1987 convicting the appellant under sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer four years' rigorous imprisonment on each count & pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each therefor and in default, to suffer further three months' R.I. 2. I have heard Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution case is that on 29.4.1987, while Satya Prakash, A.S.I. of Police Station, Bayana, was on patrol duty, he on hearing loud screams of a girl from the Dharamshala of master Bhariya Ram, located at Majra Naya Bas, made enquiries. While visiting that place, there, she met the crying girl Sadhna, who was a minor and on interrogating her, she disclosed that about ten months before, the accused appellant and his wife Mst. Rumla had met her near Jhansi Railway Station and offered her to accompany them for better livelihood and comfortable living, on which she came along with them. In course of her narration, Sadhna further disclosed that she was thereafter put in that Dharamshala and that the accused appellant during her stay there, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her several times under threat of doing away her, if she resisted. Sadhna further revealed that the accused appellant and his wife also procured one more girl viz; Chandrakala, who was kept as well in the Dharamshala. The police officer lodged the F.I.R. in which he, amongst others, mentioned that the age of Sadhna and Chandrakala was ten years and 18 years respectively and that they had been recovered from the Dharamshala. A case was registered under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for short hereinafter referred-to as "the Code", and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused appellant, his wife Rumla and also one Shanti Devi, the mother of the latter. The accused persons denied the charge, when framed against them, for which the trial followed. The prosecution thereafter examined several witnesses including two victims & the doctors, who medically examined them for ascertaining their age as well as to assess the physical injuries suffered. The accused persons denied the charge, when framed against them, for which the trial followed. The prosecution thereafter examined several witnesses including two victims & the doctors, who medically examined them for ascertaining their age as well as to assess the physical injuries suffered. At the conclusion of the trial, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as above but acquitted the co accused, while extending to them the benefit of doubt. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically argued that in absence of any evidence of inducement with ill motive, no offence under Section 366 of the Code has been made out against the appellant. As admittedly, Sadhna, even if assumed to be minor, had not been kidnapped from lawful guardianship and Chandrakala, though an adult married woman, was not living with her husband, by no means, conviction could have been recorded against the appellant under this provision of the Code. The acquittal of the co accused, more particularly Rumla, who allegedly participated in the act of abduction, dislodged the charge against the accused appellant as well, he urged. Learned counsel further argued that the medical evidence totally belies the charge of repeated forcible sexual intercourse and, thus, the testimony of the two girls PW 3 and PW 4, Sadhna and Chandrakala respectively, is liable to be rejected in limine, it being wholly impossible for them not to carry any sign of forcible rape, they having been examined on the very same day of their alleged recovery. The charge under section 376 of the Code against the appellant cannot be said to have been proved in any view of the matter, he argued. According to the learned counsel, it having been inter alia admitted by PW 3 and PW 4, Sadhna and Chandrakala respectively, that Dharamshala where they had been kept, did not have any door to their rooms, on that count as well, the allegation of forcible rape on them even during the day time falls apart. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, though fairly conceded that the evidence adduced by the prosecution vis a vis the offence of rape, is not adequately forthcoming, he asserted that it has been able to prove the charge of abduction under Section 366 of the Code against the appellant and, thus, the conviction to that extent atleast, ought to be sustained. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, though fairly conceded that the evidence adduced by the prosecution vis a vis the offence of rape, is not adequately forthcoming, he asserted that it has been able to prove the charge of abduction under Section 366 of the Code against the appellant and, thus, the conviction to that extent atleast, ought to be sustained. 6. To appropriately appreciate the rival contentions, it would be essential to briefly oversee the relevant evidence on record. 7. PW 1 Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, who medically examined the two victims, opined that the age of Sadhna and Chandrakala respectively was ten years and eighteen & half years. He deposed on the basis of the medical report that on physical examination, no injury was found on their body. He clarified that while hymen of Sadhna was intact, it was missing in Chandrakala. He affirmed to have collected the vaginal swabs of both and sent the same for forensic examination. He candidly disclosed that in absence of the result of forensic examination, it was not possible for him to opine with certainty as to whether rape was committed on the two girls. 8. PW 2 Dr. Satish Chand Vyas, Radiologist, on the basis of his investigation, opined that the age of Chandrakala and Sadhna was 18 to 19 years and 9 to 12 years respectively. 9. PW 3 Sadhna stated on oath that one day at noon, while she was collecting pieces of plastic, glass etc. near the Jhansi Railway Station, the accused appellant offered her better livelihood and comfort, for which she accompanied him. Thereafter, they travelled by train and eventually reached in Dharamshala at a place. She alleged that she was kept there and during her stay, the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with him repeatedly. She admitted that in the Dharamshala, the wife of appellant along with one lady also stayed. She however stated that these two women did never misbehave with her. She deposed as well that the appellant later also brought Chandrakala to the Dharamshala. In cross examination, this witness stated that as and when the accused appellant committed rape on her, she used to raise hue and cry but was gagged. While reiterating that the appellant used to commit such act even during the day time, she admitted that there was no door to her room in the Dharamshala. 10. In cross examination, this witness stated that as and when the accused appellant committed rape on her, she used to raise hue and cry but was gagged. While reiterating that the appellant used to commit such act even during the day time, she admitted that there was no door to her room in the Dharamshala. 10. PW 4 Chandrakala stated that she was married and that she was temporarily away from her husband and used to earn her living at Jalgaon Railway Station. She testified that one day, she was on her way back to her husband and while travelling, the accused appellant met her and offered job and decent living. On this, she accompanied him, who took her to Dharamshala at Bayana, where two to three girls stayed there from before. She alleged as well that during her stay there, the accused appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She confirmed that co accused also stayed there in the same Dharamshala. She stated as well about the presence of Sadhna, PW 3 thereat. In cross examination, she stated that after their recovery by the police from Dharamshala, they were, after 9/10 days, produced for medical examination. She disclosed that though the accused appellant did commit forcible rape on her, she did not suffer any injury. She also stated that there was no door to the room of the Dharamshala, where she used to stay. 11. I have considered the evidence on record as well as the arguments advanced. 12. The offences being inseparably interrelated, one has a decisive bearing on the other vis-a-vis the appellant. The medical evidence on a dispassionate consideration thereof, in my view, belies charge of rape. It is unbelievable that the accused appellant being a grown up adult, Sadhna, who at the relevant time aged 9 to 10 years, would not suffer any physical injury, though repeatedly violated as alleged day in and day out. Her hymen, to recollect, was found intact. Not only the medical witness did not express any opinion about rape on her and deferred it till the receipt of the report of forensic examination, no document to that effect had been proved. Chandrakala admittedly was a married woman and the medical evidence disclosed that her hymen was missing, as expected. Her hymen, to recollect, was found intact. Not only the medical witness did not express any opinion about rape on her and deferred it till the receipt of the report of forensic examination, no document to that effect had been proved. Chandrakala admittedly was a married woman and the medical evidence disclosed that her hymen was missing, as expected. Not only, she did state that she did not suffer any physical injury during the commission of forcible sexual intercourse with her, nothing to that effect was also detected in the course of her medical examination. Apart from this, the consistent statement of these two victims to the effect that room of the Dharamshala in which they used to stay, did not have any door, in my opinion, makes the allegation of commission of rape on them during day time highly improbable. On a cumulative consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I am of the conclusion that the charge of rape against the accused appellant has not been proved. 13. In the above view of the matter, having regard to the basic ingredients of the offence of abduction, the charge to this effect also, has to fail. The evidence of Sadhna and Chandrakala does not disclose per se any overwhelming endeavour on the part of the appellant to persuasively induce them to accompany him. So far as Sadhna is concerned, in terms of the F.I.R. at that point of time, the wife of the accused appellant was also with him. This aspect also renders the charge of abduction vis-a-vis the accused appellant not acceptable. Further more, as the charge under Section 376 of the Code has not been proved, on a conjoint consideration of the evidence on record, conviction of the accused appellant on this count also, cannot be sustained. 14. In the above view of the matter, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.2.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, Camp at Bayana (Bharatpur) is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge under sections 366 and 376 of the Code. The bail bonds would stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******