ORAL JUDGMENT Gopal Prasad, J No one has appeared on behalf of the Appellant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the State. 3. The Appellant has been convicted under Sections 366, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offences under Sections 366 and 366A with a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default of payment further imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 4. Prosecution case that victim, who was minor, a student of Class-VIII went to school on 23.07.2008 but did not return from school. The appellant Sailesh Kumar Singh was the home tutor of the victim. He was married and blessed with two children. The informant went to the house of Sailesh for enquiry and he was found absconding. The father of Sailesh abused the informant the grand father of the victim. The Sailesh went to school of the victim called on the victim her to follow him to purchase book but the victim refused go in pretext that she had no money to purchase then Sailesh informed her that her mother is sitting at Belhar Chauk for purchase of book then she proceeded and go out of school and when she reached at school gate she was forcibly kidnapped and taken her inside a car and taken to Delhi by making her unconscious. She was kept in a room and was raped by Sailesh Kumar Singh under threat of assault by dagger. However at Delhi she got an occasion to inform a lady about her plight and on her assertion contacted her father P.W.7 on mobile and the lady disclosed the address of the area and locality. On that information the victim was recovered from Gurgaon near Palam Air Port by P.W.7 and P.W.4 and Sailesh Kumar Singh also apprehended and handed over to Sarswati Vihar Police Station. The Belhar police was informed who took the victim to Bihar. On that information the victim was recovered from Gurgaon near Palam Air Port by P.W.7 and P.W.4 and Sailesh Kumar Singh also apprehended and handed over to Sarswati Vihar Police Station. The Belhar police was informed who took the victim to Bihar. After the recovery of the victim the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 by P.W.12 the Judicial Magistrate and was medically examined by doctors who proved her age as per radiological report in between 15-16 years or below 16 years and as per school register proved by P.W.14 the in-charge Principal. 5. The defence of the appellant is complete denial of occurrence and assertion of the fact that victim left her house at her own and his is a case of love affairs between victim and appellant. The appellant was the home tutor and the victim was more than 18 years old and was major and doctor had found her 18 years old and adduced D.W.1 and 2 in support of his contention. 6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant and sentenced as mentioned above. 7.However during the appeal no one appeared on behalf of appellant so Court taken up the point raised in grounds of appeal taken into considerations. The point raised that the witnesses are not the eye witness. The age of the victim was 18 years and was major. This is a case of love affairs so the victim was a consenting party. 8. However taking into consideration the evidence it is apparent that P.W.6 has stated in her evidence that she was the classmate of the victim, the victim came out from class in pretext to drink water and she also followed her, found her talking with Sailesh, the victim found traceless from school and the victim herself has deposed that she has been kidnapped by the appellant on pretext of purchase of book and taken to Delhi and kept in a room and raped at the threat to give dagger injury and the victim recovered from Delhi and appellant apprehended is apparent to establish and there is no merit in assertion that there is no eye witness when the victim was recovered. The point that victim was 18 years old is a submission against record. It has been misread that doctor found her 18 years old. The point that victim was 18 years old is a submission against record. It has been misread that doctor found her 18 years old. The doctor, P.W.9, proved her age by radiology in between 15 to 16 years and P.W.11 has stated that since her teeth are 14 so she shall be below 16 to 18 and the school register, which is more authentic about age has proved by P.W.14 to assess her age as 14 years. Hence there is no merit in submission that victim was 14 years. 9. The next point is that there was a love affair and victim was a consenting party to home tutor. From evidence, it is established that victim was minor. However in this regard the evidence of victim is relevant. She has not stated that she went with the appellant at her own nor admits rape with consent rather has deposed that she was raped at the point of threat to assault by dagger. In this context it is relevant to consider that appellant was a teacher of the victim. It is admitted that he was home tutor and used to teach her and hence there was a fiduciary relationship between the accused appellant and the victim. The victim being in her custody he was a trustee and in such case Section 114 A of Evidence Act attracted and it provides prosecutions against consent even if the victim is major as held by the decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 2408 (Mohan Lal & Anr. v. State of Punjab). Moreover, the victim has stated that she has been raped and hence there is no reason to disbelieve. It is well settled that the statement of his prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable required no corroboration and the conviction can be maintained under prosecutrix. It has also a matter of experience that in Indian set up the people knows the consequence of alleging rape as it is true as a stigma from the face of the victim and the victim looses respect and even ostracize from the society and there is a great risk of her marriage and future aspect. It has also a matter of experience that in Indian set up the people knows the consequence of alleging rape as it is true as a stigma from the face of the victim and the victim looses respect and even ostracize from the society and there is a great risk of her marriage and future aspect. In addition to the mental agony and torture and suffering to herself and hence the given facts and circumstances asking for a corroboration with regard to the statement of a victim and hence I find that the prosecution has been able to prove and I do not find any merit to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction by the Lower Court and hence the Appeal is dismissed.