JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Appellants-convict Dinesh Kumar, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 23.8.2013/26.8.2013, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 19-S/7 of 2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar, whereby he stands convicted of the offence, punishable under the provisions of Sections 376, 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced as under: Offence Sentence Section 376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Section 363 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Section 366 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. It is the case of prosecution that prosecutrix (PW-2), a minor, aged 14 years, a student of 9th Class, was enticed by the accused to have sex with him, on the pretext of solemnization of marriage. Sometime in the middle of 2011, he firstly developed intimacy and had sex with her in the jungle near a place known as Chambi. Subsequently, on 21.2.2012, he took the prosecutrix, on the pretext of marrying her, to the house of his paternal aunt in village Dhadi Rawat, where again he subjected her to rape, without fulfilling his promise of marriage. Finding the prosecutrix to be missing, her father Laiq Ram (PW-25) lodged report dated 23.2.2012 (Ex. PW-21/A) with the police, on the basis of which FIR No. 23, dated 23.2.2012 (Ex. PW-23/A), for commission of offences under the provisions of Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Theog. On the information so furnished by Ms Santoshi (PW-6), a friend of the prosecutrix, police was able to reach to the accused and recover the prosecutrix from the house of Sohan Lal (DW-1), situated in village Dhadi Rawat. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Nidhi Sharma (PW-19), who issued MLC (Ex. PW-19/A). Accused, who was arrested, made disclosure statement (Ex. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Nidhi Sharma (PW-19), who issued MLC (Ex. PW-19/A). Accused, who was arrested, made disclosure statement (Ex. PW-9/A), in the presence of HHC Pardeep Singh (PW-9) and Baldev Singh (PW-14) and led the police to the place where he had subjected the prosecutrix to rape and also got recovered incriminating articles. ASI Dev Raj (PW-22) conducted investigation; took on record proof with regard to age of the prosecutrix. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime; hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed offences, punishable under the provisions of Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and statement of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was also recorded, in which he took the following defence: "I am innocent. She wanted to be married with my friends Vijay and Arush and I am falsely implicated." He examined Sohan Lal (DW-1) as his witness. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of the charged offences and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. 6. Relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, in Parminder alias Ladka Pola Vs. State of Delhi, (2014) 2 SCC 592 ; State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Lekhram, (2006) 5 SCC 736 ; and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Munna Choubey and Another, (2005) 2 SCC 710 , Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the accused, contends that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is much on the higher side. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence, for the reasons so assigned therein. 8. Even though, limited submission on behalf of the accused is made before us, however, considering it as our duty, we have minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses of the parties as also other material on record. Having perused the same, we are of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the present case. 8. Even though, limited submission on behalf of the accused is made before us, however, considering it as our duty, we have minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses of the parties as also other material on record. Having perused the same, we are of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the present case. It cannot be said that the reasons so adopted or the findings returned by the trial Court are perverse, erroneous or illegal. There is proper and complete appreciation of the testimonies of witnesses. Statutory provisions cannot be said to have been ignored. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 9. Accused wanted the trial Court to believe that no recovery, as alleged by the prosecution, was effected from the house of Sohan Lal (DW-1). But when we peruse the testimony of this witness, we find the fact not to have been, prima facie, established/proved or probablized at all. In fact, Sohan Lal admits to have signed recovery Memo (Ex. PW-7/A) as also other documents, pertaining to identification and recovery of the incriminating articles, based on the disclosure statement made by the accused. No evidence was led to reflect intent of the prosecutrix of marrying friends of the accused. Hence, defence of the accused, in no manner, can be said to have been probablized even from the suggestion put to the prosecution witnesses. 10. This now takes us to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The fact that on 21.2.2012, prosecutrix was found to be missing from the house of her parents, stands established not only by the prosecutrix but also through the testimonies of Laiq Ram (PW-25), Vikas Mehta (PW-7), Ms Santoshi (PW-6) and Daulat Ram (PW-8). In unequivocal terms, these witnesses have deposed that when prosecutrix was found missing from home, matter was first brought to the notice of Daulat Ram and thereafter to the notice of police by way of complaint dated 23.2.2012 (Ex. PW-21/A), on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PW-23/A) was registered. Recovery of the prosecutrix from the house of Sohan Lal on 29.2.2012, also stands established on record through the testimonies of ASI Dev Raj (PW-22) and Vikas Mehta (PW-7). PW-21/A), on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PW-23/A) was registered. Recovery of the prosecutrix from the house of Sohan Lal on 29.2.2012, also stands established on record through the testimonies of ASI Dev Raj (PW-22) and Vikas Mehta (PW-7). Police took photographs (Ex. PW-22/C-1 and 22/C-2), which do reveal recovery of the prosecutrix having been effected from the house of Sohan Lal, who also admits correctness of the exhibits. 11. With the recovery having been effected on 29.2.2012, prosecutrix was immediately got medically examined from Dr. Nidhi Sharma (PW-19), who issued MLC (Ex. PW-19/A) and final opinion (Ex. PW-19/B). The Doctor, as is evident from her testimony, was of the view that possibility of recent vaginal penetration could not be ruled out. Hymen was ruptured and vagina could admit two fingers. 12. The fact that prosecutrix, as on the date of the commission of crime, was minor, below 16 years of age, in fact of 14 years, stands established not only through the testimony of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1), Ranjeet Singh (PW-24), but also prosecutrix and her mother Sarita (PW-3). Conjoint reading of testimonies of these witnesses and the documentary evidence (Ex. PW-1/A, 1/C, 1/E, 4/B, 4/C, 24/B, 24/C & CA), so produced on record, establish the prosecutrix to have been born on 28.2.1987. She is the youngest child of Sarita (PW-3) and Laiq Ram (PW-25). FIR (Ex. PW-23/A) with regard to missing of prosecutrix was lodged on 23.2.2012. Hence, prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of commission of crime, was below 16 years. 13. The most relevant evidence on record is the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-2), who in no uncertain terms, has deposed that five-six months prior to February, 2012, accused developed intimacy with her. He took her mobile number and would often call her. Once he called her to Kali Mata Temple at Deundar, where she went with her cousin Priyanka. There accused gifted her a cell phone. He continued to talk to her on phone. After a period of one month, he called her to a place known as Chambi, where, behind the bushes, he subjected her to rape. Accused promised that he would marry her and asked her not to report the incident to anyone. There accused gifted her a cell phone. He continued to talk to her on phone. After a period of one month, he called her to a place known as Chambi, where, behind the bushes, he subjected her to rape. Accused promised that he would marry her and asked her not to report the incident to anyone. On the asking of accused, on 21.2.2012, she again went to Chambi, from where accused took her in his vehicle first to Nerwa and then to Fediz Bridge. Thereafter, he took her in a bus to Kuddu and then to Dhadi Rawat, where she was made to stay in the house of paternal aunt of the accused for five-six days. There also, he disclosed that he was to marry her. She continued to reside in that house till 28.2.2012 and all this while, accused, on the pretext of marrying her, subjected her to rape. Despite promises, accused did not marry her. Prosecutrix admits that first time when she was subjected to rape, her friend Santoshi (PW-6) was also present, but at a distance. Prosecutrix has withstood the test of cross-examination and her version cannot be said to be false, unbelievable or uninspiring in confidence. Her testimony cannot be said to be shaky either or her credit impeached. She is clear and consistent in her version. 14. Ms Santoshi (PW-6) has also deposed that accused used to meet the prosecutrix at the temple. Also accused used to talk with the prosecutrix on cell phone, which he had gifted her. She was informed by one Dinu that prosecutrix had been taken away by the accused from the village. 15. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother, as is evident from the testimony of Sarita (PW-3). 16. From the testimonies of Sarita, Vikas Mehta and Laiq Ram, it is evidently clear that the prosecutrix did not leave her parental house with the consent of her parents. She was recovered from the house of Sohan Lal, as is evident from the testimony of LC Sushma (PW-10), ASI Ashwani Kumar (PW-20) and ASI Dev Raj (PW-22). 17. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. PW-9/A), so made in the presence of HHC Pardeep Singh (PW-9) and Baldev Singh (PW-14), police got recovered incriminating articles. She was recovered from the house of Sohan Lal, as is evident from the testimony of LC Sushma (PW-10), ASI Ashwani Kumar (PW-20) and ASI Dev Raj (PW-22). 17. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. PW-9/A), so made in the presence of HHC Pardeep Singh (PW-9) and Baldev Singh (PW-14), police got recovered incriminating articles. Though by way of scientific evidence, prosecution version could not be corroborated, but factum of the accused having taken away the prosecutrix, without the consent and wishes of her parents, stands established on record. 18. From the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution witnesses that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence charged for. There is sufficient, convincing, cogent and reliable evidence on record to this effect. The circumstances stand conclusively proved by the unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. It cannot be said that accused is innocent or not guilty or that he has been falsely implicated or that his defence is probable or that the evidence led by the prosecution is inconsistent, unreliable, untrustworthy and unbelievable. It cannot be said that the version narrated by the witnesses in Court is in a parrot-like manner and hence is to be disbelieved. 19. In our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. 20. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it stands proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused kidnapped the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her father without his consent, knowing it that she would be compelled to marry him or subjected to sexual intercourse on such pretext and thereafter committed rape on her. Hence, the accused stands rightly convicted for the charged offences. 21. The question, which needs to be considered, as is so argued on behalf of the appellant, is as to whether the sentence of punishment, so imposed by the Court below, is on the higher side or not. In the given facts and the circumstances, we do not find it to be so. 22. On the pretext of marriage, prosecutrix was enticed by the accused and subjected to rape. She was removed from the lawful guardianship of her parents, without their consent. Even thereafter, she was subjected to rape on false promise. In the given facts and the circumstances, we do not find it to be so. 22. On the pretext of marriage, prosecutrix was enticed by the accused and subjected to rape. She was removed from the lawful guardianship of her parents, without their consent. Even thereafter, she was subjected to rape on false promise. The promise of solemnization of marriage remained unfulfilled. Quite apparently, there was no intent to fulfill the same. No doubt, at the time of commission of crime, prosecutrix was minor and any such marriage would have been void, but then no endeavour in fulfilling the promise was ever made by the accused, who, being of marriageable age, took a false defence of the prosecutrix desiring of solemnizing her marriage with his friends Vijay and Arush. 23. It is in this backdrop, we do not find the sentence of imprisonment of ten years so imposed by the trial Court, in relation to an offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to be on the higher side. Gullible, as she was, prosecutrix was not able to understand the consequences of her actions, but then accused, who had acquired the age of maturity, had no business to play with the sentiments of a child and abuse her to satisfy his lust. Prosecutrix, who was minor, may not have acquired maturity to understand the implications of her actions or for that matter acts of the accused, but then the accused was mature enough to understand the implications of false promise made by him and under the pretext of marrying the prosecutrix repeatedly subjected her to rape. 24. We do notice that accused is a young man, but then he is not a victim of circumstances. His actions are deliberate. We do not find any reason, adequate or special, to impose punishment, lesser than the one so imposed by the Court below. 25. Submission made by Mr. Chitkara that prosecutrix was a consenting party, based on her admission of presence of her friend Ms Santoshi, when she was first subjected to rape, in no manner, can be said to be a mitigating circumstance. Prosecutrix submitted herself to the desire of the accused on the promise of marriage. Such submission was not on a singular occasion. 26. Chitkara that prosecutrix was a consenting party, based on her admission of presence of her friend Ms Santoshi, when she was first subjected to rape, in no manner, can be said to be a mitigating circumstance. Prosecutrix submitted herself to the desire of the accused on the promise of marriage. Such submission was not on a singular occasion. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Munna Choubey (supra) has reiterated its earlier views that imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. 27. In Lekhram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with a case where prosecutrix was found to be a mature girl; married; spent few months at the place of her in-laws; having known the accused for long time and having lived with him in a rented house for long time. The facts here are totally different. 28. Under similar circumstances, as noticed by the Court in Parminder (supra), the apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Bablu Natt, (2009) 2 SCC 272 , set aside the judgment of imposition of sentence of less than seven years. In both the cases, while dealing with the case of a girl aged 14 years, the Court did not find adequate and special reasons for imposition of sentence lesser than the one prescribed under the Act. 29. Thus, the decisions referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused, in no manner, advance the case of the accused. 30. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.