JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prakash G. Pandya for the appellant and learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent - State. 2. The appellant herein has been charged and tried by the Addl. Sessions Court, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2009 for the offences punishable u/ss. 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him for all such offences and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 15000/-, with a condition that in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of 12 months. Such conviction is by impugned judgment and order dated 4.8.2011, which is under challenge. 3. The sessions case under reference has been initiated pursuant to FIR registered before Gorva police station of Vadodara as C.R.no.56 of 2009 by Gulamnabi Ibrahim Ghanchi, father of the victim. In his complaint dated 8.3.2009, it is contended by the complainant that the victim, who is his daughter had been to her school in the morning and since she did not return from the school, he inquired from other girls studying with his daughter in the same school and it was revealed that a person, who was residing nearby his house had called his daughter out of the school in the morning and, thereafter, they were not traceable. Thereupon, he inquired about such person, who was present accused, as he was also not found at his home and such fact has been confirmed by his wife, Sandhya. Thereupon, he lodged a complaint that present accused has abducted his minor daughter aged about 14 years with ulterior motive of committing rape on her. It is not disputed fact that victim was not traceable and, ultimately, she was found with the present accused from Dakor and, therefore, after thorough investigation and inquiry, the I.O. has filed chargesheet against the appellant - accused, which resulted into his conviction as aforesaid. 4. The story and history of complainant and investigation is well described in the impugned judgment, so also list of witnesses and evidence and, therefore, I am not inclined to reproduce those factual details again, except to recollect that the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and also produced equal number of documentary evidence to prove its case. 4. The story and history of complainant and investigation is well described in the impugned judgment, so also list of witnesses and evidence and, therefore, I am not inclined to reproduce those factual details again, except to recollect that the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and also produced equal number of documentary evidence to prove its case. I have perused record and proceedings as well as paper-book in form of all such evidence and the impugned judgment. The learned Sessions Court has dealt with each and every evidence and issue before it in full detail before confirming conviction and also assigned reasons for awarding sentence as aforesaid. 5. Considering the oral evidence and supporting scientific documentary evidence in the form of FSL report and the age of the victim being only 14 years, I do not find any material substance in the evidence so as to reverse the judgment of conviction into acquittal as pleaded and submitted before this Court in this appeal. Probably, considering the nature of evidence and details of victim as well as evidence on record, it is alternatively submitted by the appellant that the sentence of 10 years is harsh and that since he has undergone imprisonment for more than five years, atleast quantum of sentence may be reduced for the period which he has already undergone. 6. In any case, when appellant is seeking acquittal, it would be necessary to examine the basic material and evidence, so as to ascertain that whether there is any substance or reason either to acquit the appellant or even to reduce the sentence. 7. If we peruse the available evidence on record, it becomes clear that there is nothing on record except the plea of consent of the victim for moving with the accused and also for entering into physical relationship with the accused. However, the law does not recognize such consent as legal consent considering the age of the victim being less than 16 years. 8. The perusal of evidence even does not confirm that there is clear consent by the victim. 9. The outcome of evidence is discussed hereunder, wherein I have restricted to refer only the material evidence so far as involvement and consent of the victim herein is concerned, leaving the surrounding stories and factual details. PW-1 at Exh. 10 is complainant Gulamnabi Ibrahim Ghanchi, who is father of the victim. 9. The outcome of evidence is discussed hereunder, wherein I have restricted to refer only the material evidence so far as involvement and consent of the victim herein is concerned, leaving the surrounding stories and factual details. PW-1 at Exh. 10 is complainant Gulamnabi Ibrahim Ghanchi, who is father of the victim. In addition of disclosing details regarding his family and history for the complaint, the witness has categorically disclosed that it was revealed during his inquiry that accused has abducted his daughter and even wife of the accused has confirmed that accused has gone to drop the victim to Village: Gavasad at the house of brother-in-law of the witness, but when accused and victim were not found at Gavasad, complaint was filed and during inquiry, police has traced out their whereabouts and caught them from Dakor. The witness has further proved and produced the birth certificate of the victim, according to which the date of birth of the victim is 1.10.1995 and, thereby, on the date of incident, victim was just 13 years and five months old i.e. in any case less than 16 years and, therefore, she was minor. An attempt was made while cross-examining him by the appellant that there was practice of money transaction between two families and when appellant has stopped to advance the money to the complainant, this false complaint is filed. However, nothing can be proved to confirm that there was actual money transaction between them and that accused has not abducted the victim and, thereby, not committed the offence as alleged. Since medical evidence is positive to confirm the commission of offence of rape also, the manner and details of acts, which amounts to rape are not required to be reproduced everywhere. 10. PW-2 at Exh. 12 is mother of the victim, namely, Mumtazben Gulamnabi. She has supported the version of her husband both in her examination-in-chief and in her cross-examination and though she admits that they have a good relationship with the family of the accused and they have money transaction amongst them, she denies the suggestion that complaint was filed falsely only because appellant has stopped to advance the money to them. 11. The important evidence at Exh. 14 being PW-3 is the victim herself. 11. The important evidence at Exh. 14 being PW-3 is the victim herself. She has categorically deposed on oath before the Court that on the date of incident, she had been to her school where the accused had come and conveyed her that she has to come with him because her mother is sick. Though, initially, she had refused to go with him, as she had just come from her house only, but she thought that if her mother is really sick, she decided to go with him, but as she was disturbed because of the sickness of her mother, she could not notice that appellant has driven her on his bike not at her home, but at somebody's house and where he asked her to change the school uniform and wear another dress. At such point of time, she has categorically stated that she has asked to go back home, but appellant did not agree to take her home and took her to different places like Ahmedabad, Atladara and, ultimately, at Dakor. She has categorically deposed that during such period at Ahmedabad and Dakor, the appellant has committed wrong with her by entering into physical relation. It is stated by her that even in past appellant used to drop and pick-up her up for tuition and from school and also used to take her on joy ride and also took her to movies stating that her father or mother had called her. However, it is categorically deposed by her that though she has refused to enter into physical relationship, the appellant has given her threat that if she does not allow to do it, he may kill her and that once it is done, he will relieve and let her go to her house. She also states that she did not have a mobile at that time and that her date of birth is 1.10.1995 and that after they were found by the relatives and police, she was taken to doctor, where she was examined and she identifies the relevant muddamal articles. 12. She also states that she did not have a mobile at that time and that her date of birth is 1.10.1995 and that after they were found by the relatives and police, she was taken to doctor, where she was examined and she identifies the relevant muddamal articles. 12. During her cross-examination, the appellant could not prove either her consent or non-commission of offence as alleged by him except several suggestion to prove that she has not complained for all these three days, but the witness has categorically deposed that it was not possible for her to complain anybody, since there was no such chance and that appellant has given threat to kill. On the contrary, she has reconfirmed that accused has taken her to different places by temptation, coercion and threat. 13. PW-4 at Exh. 15 is panch witness of the clothes recovered from the accused. PW-5 at Exh. 17 is panch witness of clothes collected from the victim and they both have supported the prosecution case. 14. Pws-6 and 7 at Exhs.22 and 25 are panch witnesses of recovery of school bag and some other materials of the victim and, therefore, though they have not supported the prosecution case, their evidence is not much material. Whereas PW-8 at Exh. 26, a panch witness of the bed-sheet and other materials recovered from the accused, has not supported the prosecution. However, the other witness of the said panchnama, namely, Anilbhai Rambhai Prajapati at Exh. 28 as PW-9 has supported the case of the prosecution and confirmed that such articles were recovered from the accused. 15. PW-10 is Head-Constable, namely, Takhatsinh Mohansinh who has simply registered the FIR. Whereas, PW-11 at Exh. 32 is Dr. Ramprakash Ramsevak Gupta, who has narrated the investigation carried out by him. Though he has admitted several suggestions in cross-examination, it nowhere proves either consent by the victim or non-commission of offence by the accused. PW-12 at Exh. 37 is again a Police Constable, who has forwarded the complaint. Whereas PW-13 at Exh. 39 is an investigating officer and, therefore, he has narrated the entire history and story of the complaint and investigation and proved several documentary evidence viz. correspondence and FSL report, which he has dealt with during his investigation, including the register of the Dharamshala from where accused and appellant were found and caught. Whereas PW-13 at Exh. 39 is an investigating officer and, therefore, he has narrated the entire history and story of the complaint and investigation and proved several documentary evidence viz. correspondence and FSL report, which he has dealt with during his investigation, including the register of the Dharamshala from where accused and appellant were found and caught. An attempt was made in his cross-examination to prove that investigation was not proper and that recovery of muddamal is also not proper. However, nothing can be the proved in favour of the appellant from such cross-examination. 16. At Exh. 42, a passenger register of Dr. Bachubhai Soni (Barichavala) in Dharamshala, Dakor is proved on record wherein at entry No. 472 on 9.3.2009 accused has entered his name as passenger with one another name as Payal Pratap Naidu, as name of the victim though her name is not such and, therefore, it confirms that the appellant - accused had stayed at such Dharamshala with the victim and when police has found victim with the appellant in such Dharamshala, there is no option, but to confirm the offence of abduction. At Exh. 43, there is receipt of payment of rent at such Dharamshala. 17. PW-14 at Exh. 44 is panch witness of Ahmedabad where the accused has stayed with the victim. The witness has supported the prosecution case and appellant could not prove anything in his favour during cross-examination of such witness. 18. PWs-15 and 16 at Exhs.45 and 46 seem to be son and mother and are neighbours of the appellant in Ahmedabad. Though they did not agree that they have helped the appellant to stay at the place, they have no option but to say that they were residing in the nearby house and have identified them. 19. PW-17 at Exh. 48 is also investigating officer, who has chased and traced the accused and carried out some investigation. He has narrated the history of his activity, but the appellant could not prove anything in his favour from such witness. This witness has also proved the telephone call record and other relevant documents, which are not much material at present. 20. The material evidence is in form of FSL report at Exh. He has narrated the history of his activity, but the appellant could not prove anything in his favour from such witness. This witness has also proved the telephone call record and other relevant documents, which are not much material at present. 20. The material evidence is in form of FSL report at Exh. 53 wherein material specimens are specimen No. 3 - underwear of the victim, specimen No. 8 - pyjama of the victim, specimen No. 9 - underwear of the appellant, specimen No. 19 - vaginal swab of the victim. The FSL report specifically confirms that on all such specimens, there was presence of sperm. Therefore, when there is evidence on record that appellant has taken minor girl aged 14 years with him for couple of days from one place to another, and when victim states that during those days the appellant has committed offence of rape with her and, moreover, when man's sperm were found on the clothes and vaginal swab of the minor victim, no further evidence is required to confirm that appellant has in fact committed the offence as alleged i.e. abduction and rape on such minor victim. 21. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in following two cases confirms that consent of victim is not material when she is minor. "(1) State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekari reported in AIR 2004 SC 4404 . (2) Iqbal v. State of Kerala reported in (2007)12 SCC 724 ." 22. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the appeal either to acquit the appellant or to reduce the period of sentence in any manner whatsoever. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. R & P be sent back to the concerned trial Court.