JUDGMENT : By way of aforesaid two appeals both the aforesaid appellants have challenged the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of the trial court dated 28.5.2012 passed by Special Judge, Bijnor in Session's Trial No.562 of 2008, under Sections 363, 366, 376/511 and 376(2)(g) IPC Case Crime No.2071 of 2006, Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Bijnor, whereby respondent nos.3 to 7 have been acquitted of all charges and respondent no.2 has been acquitted of charge under Sections 376(2)(g) (in Appeal No.285/2012), and order of conviction (in Appeal No.2436/2012) made against appellant Sonu @ Rahul under Sections 363, 366 IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I. and 7 years R.I. coupled with fine Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively- with direction to realize the amount of fine as arrears of land revenue and 80% of the amount shall be given to the victim, besides directing that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Since both the aforesaid appeals are connected and arise out of the same judgment and order dated 28.05.2012 passed by Special Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No.562 of 2008, therefore, the same are being disposed of by common judgment. For the proper understanding the nature of both the aforesaid appeals, it can be observed that the aforesaid Appeal No.285 of 2012 has been preferred by the informant- Satyapal Singh- against the accused respondent nos.2 to 7 against the finding of acquittal recorded in relation to respondents under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)g and 376 read with Section 511 IPC, whereas Appeal No.2436 of 2012 has been preferred by accused Sonu @ Rahul s/o Anand Kumar against his conviction under Sections 363, 366 IPC, whereby he has been sentenced to 5 years and 7 years R.I. coupled with fine of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/-, respectively and the amount of fine has been directed to be realized as arrears of land revenue. Facts relevant giving rise to the aforesaid appeal as discernible from the record appear to be that a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) was lodged at police Kotwali Sahar, Bijnor, on 31.8.2006 by informant- Satyapal Singh, wherein, it was alleged that his daughter (whose name has not been described in the body of the judgment, therefore, she shall be referred to as the 'victim' for her further reference in judgment), aged 14 years old had gone to answer nature's call in the southern side forest of the village at 5.00 A.M. but did not return. Informant's son- Deepak and wife - Omviri made hectic search for her, but could not know whereabouts of the victim. The victim pursued study up to class V in the Govt. School of the village. Today in the evening Vinod s/o Kali Ram, resident of Ugri and Vishal s/o Aman Singh, resident of Bijnor Sahar, saw the victim in company of Anil son of Buddhoo, Anil's wife, son-in-law of Anil, Sonu son of Anand resident of Lucknow and Sonu son of Om Prakash (who was cousin brother of Anil) and Pankaj (brother-in-law of Anil) near the place Agri,on Noorpur- Bijnor Road in a car, in the morning. They waved hands, but all the persons, hurriedly passed by towards Bijnor. It was alleged that all the aforesaid persons have forcible enticed away/ kidnapped informant's daughter. The date and time of the incident mentioned was 27.8.2006 at 5.00 A.M. Contents of written report were taken down in the concerned check FIR at case crime number 2071 of 2006, under sections 363, 366 I.P.C. at police station- Kotwali Sahar, district Bijnor. The copy of check FIR is Ex.Ka.10. Consequent upon entries so made in the check FIR, a case was registered against the accused at Police Station- Kotwali Sahar at aforesaid crime number, under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code vide entry made in the concerned General Diary of date 31.8.2006. The relevant GD entry is Exhibit Ka.9. Investigation ensued and the victim was recovered on 11.9.2006 (Recovery memo- Exhibit Ka-3A), whereupon, she was medically examined by the doctor. Medical examination report is Ext.-Ka.4, and X-Ray report and age assessment report of the victim based on report of radiological test which is Ext.- Ka.5. Victim was given in custody of informant- Satyapal Singh on 13.9.2006. This memo of 'supurduginama' is Ext. Ka.-2. Medical examination report is Ext.-Ka.4, and X-Ray report and age assessment report of the victim based on report of radiological test which is Ext.- Ka.5. Victim was given in custody of informant- Satyapal Singh on 13.9.2006. This memo of 'supurduginama' is Ext. Ka.-2. The Investigating Officer after recording the statement of various witnesses and taking necessary steps, submitted two charge- sheets, viz., one charge sheet (Ext. Ka.-7) under sections 363, 366, 376 read with section 511 I.P.C. against the aforesaid accused respondents- Anil, Sonu, Sanjay and Pankaj; and second supplementary charge- sheet submitted- Ext. Ka.-8, under sectionss 363, 366, 376 read with section 511 I.P.C. against Smt. Pooja, Sonu @ Rahul son of Anand Kumar. Proceedings of the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, from where this case was made over for trial and disposal to the court of Special Judge, Bijnor. Appellants were heard on point of charge and the trial court was prima facie satisfied with the case against the accused-appellants, therefore, it framed charges against the accused-appellants under the aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code. Charges read over and explained to the accused, who abjured charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced in all testimony of ten witnesses, brief sketch of the same is herein under: Satyapal Singh P.W. 1 is the informant. Victim herself is P.W. 2. Dr. Saroj Arora is P.W.3. Pushpendra Singh is P.W. 4. Brijendra Singh is P.W. 5. S.I. Devendra Kumar is P.W.6. Navneet Kumar - teacher of primary school, Jhalu, is P.W. 7. Ratendra Singh Gahlot is P.W. 8. Shaupal Singh is P.W. 9. Constable Anil Kumar is P.W. 10. Documentary evidence was also tendered viz. Copy of transfer certificate of the victim is Ext. Ka.-9, copy of attendance sheet and attendance register is Ext. Ka.10, and Ext. Ka-11, copy of admission form is Ext. Ka.12. Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, various reasons were assigned by the accused appellants for their false implication in this case. The defence led testimony of D.W.1 Jasveer Singh, Hemendra Singh D.W.2 and Pandit Vashuvrit Shastri is D.W. 3. The defence also produced certain papers as per list 283 Kha. Accused Sonu @ Rahul also produced eight documents. The defence led testimony of D.W.1 Jasveer Singh, Hemendra Singh D.W.2 and Pandit Vashuvrit Shastri is D.W. 3. The defence also produced certain papers as per list 283 Kha. Accused Sonu @ Rahul also produced eight documents. The trial court, after scrutinizing various facts and circumstances of the case, and evaluating the testimony, recorded finding of acquittal of the aforesaid accused- respondent no.2 under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and respondent nos.3 to 7 under Sections 363, 366, 376/511 and 376(2)(g) IPC (concerning Appeal No.285 of 2012) whereas convicted Sonu s/o Anand Kumar under Sections 363, 366 IPC concerning Appeal No.2436 of 2012. Resultantly, the two appeals one by the informant against order of acquittal (Appeal No.285 of 2012) and the another by accused- Sonu @ Rahul s/o Anand against his conviction (Appeal No.2436 of 2012) under Sections 363, 366 IPC. It has been claimed on behalf of the informant Satyapal Singh that the testimony on record when taken as a whole proves kidnapping / abduction of the victim on 27.8.2006 at 5 A.M. from village- Gopalpur, District Bijnor and it is conclusive finding that the victim was minor on the date of the incident. Once the victim was found to be minor, then all the persons, who enticed her away and thereafter sexually assaulted her, are guilty of committing crime under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g) IPC, but the court below inspite of overwhelming testimony on record erroneously recorded finding of acquittal under aforesaid Sections of Indian Penal Code, and convicting the only accused respondent- Sonu @ Rahul S/o Anand Kumar- under Sections 363, 366 IPC, which is absolutely illegal. On behalf of the appellant- Sonu @ Rahul S/o Anand Kumar, it has been urged that the testimony on record proves factum of date of birth of the victim given in the Family Register of the informant and placed on record shows that the victim was major on the date of occurrence and she of her own free-will entered into nuptial- knot with the appellant, but on being persuaded by her parents, she deliberately taken 'U' turn and built - up false story of kidnapping and rape, not only against the appellant but also against other family members and relatives of the appellant, which factual aspect on carefully scrutiny was found to be not inspiring confidence by the trial court, therefore, it rightly acquitted the appellant of charge under Section 376 (2)(g) IPC, whereas erroneously convicted him under Sections 363, 366 IPC and awarded harsh sentence, which finding of conviction and sentence is not justified. Learned AGA has supported the judgment and submitted that the finding of conviction recorded against the appellants is just finding. Also considered the rival submissions. After consideration of the submission so raised and the rival claims obviously the core consideration for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact whether the finding of acquittal of the aforesaid accused and the finding of conviction under Sections 363, 366 IPC against the aforesaid appellant Sonu @ Rahul s/o Anand Kumar requires interference by this Court on ground that it being erroneous and perverse? Bare Perusal of the record and the testimony in this case establishes fact that the date of birth of the victim is 10.06.1992 and the same has been duly proved by the testimony of Navneet Kumar, teacher of the Government Primary, School, Jhalu, P.W.7, and the same has been rightly believed to be correct date of birth for the reason that year of birth of victim described in the copy of Family Register (produced by the accused Sonu) mentions year of birth as 1986, the copy of the Family Register is Paper No. Kha-290, which is not specific date of birth and it is silent on month and date of the year. The rationale behind acting on date of birth 10.6.1992 in place of year 1986 (as shown in Family Register) was based on analogy that the date of birth recorded in the Government School is specific and has been proved by the authority of the school and in his cross-examination nothing adverse has emerged, which may create any shadow of doubt on the authenticity of the version of the prosecution witness proving such date of birth, whereas the year of birth recorded in the Family Register is not specific about the date and the month and while comparing the two aforesaid dates of birth, the date of birth recorded in the school was found to be firmly established. That way, the finding of the trial court was correct one to the ambit that the victim was around 15 years of age on the date of occurrence. At this stage relevant to take note of fact that Dr. Saroj Arora P.W.3 has expressed opinion on the basis of of X-ray report of the victim that she was below 18 years of age. This opinion is variable by two years on either side. That way, it may be around 20 years and around 16 years, but the analogy drawn by the lower court is consistent, under the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, no interference on the point of determination of date of birth/age of the victim, need be entertained by us. The other aspects of this case regarding complicity and involvement of the other accused except Sonu @ Rahul son of Anand in the commission of the crime is concerned, then we may unequivocally observe that the finding recorded by the trial court that the case against the other appellants under the aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code is not proved beyond doubt, appears to be consistent finding while scrutinizing the testimony on record and collating the same with the facts and circumstances of the case. With a view to appreciate the same, we take note of fact that the incident allegedly occurred on 27.8.2006 at 5 A.M. and the report was lodged on 31.8.2006, no doubt after 3-4 days of the occurrence, but that is justified for the reason that normally in such cases the aggrieved person/family usually strive to know whereabouts of the victim and after failure of such effort, a report is lodged considering the dignity and honour of the family. Bare perusal of the testimony of Satyapal Singh P.W.1 evinces truth that he is not an eye-witness of the occurrence, but the informant, Satyapal Singh (P.W.1) was told about the fact of the victim being conveyed in a car by Vishal and Vinod. The victim herself has testified that on the day of occurrence on 27th August, 2006 at 5 A.M. she had gone to answer nature's call, Pooja met her outside the house and she accompanied her to the agricultural field in the forest and she choose field of Megha Singh, where Anil, Sonu s/o Om Prakash, Sanjay, Pankaj and Sonu resident of Lucknow surrounded her and Pooja asked them to take her (victim) away. Anil put some white cloth (handkerchief like cloth) on her mouth due to which she fell unconscious. When she regained conscious, she found herself in a train with Sonu s/o Anand resident of Lucknow. Here the peculiarity of this case is that despite incident being witnessed by the two persons, namely, Vishal and Vinod, none has been produced by the prosecution and the only eye- account testimony of the factum of enticing away of the victim is the victim herself. No plausible reason has been given for not producing the aforesaid two persons- Vishal and Vinod as prosecution witnesses, so as to strengthen claim of informant that all the aforesaid accused were involved in the kidnapping of the victim. Therefore, to believe and act upon testimony of the victim alone that she was surrounded by the accused and then Anil placed some white cloth on her mouth which rendered her unconscious, need independent corroboration. Therefore, to believe and act upon testimony of the victim alone that she was surrounded by the accused and then Anil placed some white cloth on her mouth which rendered her unconscious, need independent corroboration. But, in so far as the complicity of accused Sonu @ Rahul S/o Anand Kumar in enticing away the victim is concerned, the same is very much vindicated by the documents placed on record by the accused Sonu @ Rahul S/o Anand Kumar himself when he filed paper per list 238 Kha, which establishes that accused Sonu @ Rahul S/o Anand Kumar enticed away the victim and induced her for entering into wedlock with himself. Love letter purportedly written by the victim in the name of accused Sonu @ Rahul S/o Anand Kumar has been placed on record by the accused per list 284 Kha. Contention has been raised by appellant Sonu that this love letter invariably proves consent of the victim, in accompanying him and also claim that she was major on the date of occurrence, but as held above, the date of birth of the victim is 10.6.1992, therefore, she being minor on the date of occurrence (27.8.2006), her consent is no consent in the eye of law. Therefore, consent is not lawful. Exhibit Kha-2 is the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj, which also proves the fact that the accused enticed the victim away from the lawful guardianship of her parents and induced the victim to enter into wedlock. Thus, the statement of the victim P.W.2 regarding her kidnapping and forced marriage by accused Sonu @ Rahul S/o Anand Kumar stands proved and established against accused Sonu @ Rahul s/o Anand, whereas other offence concerning rape is not proved against him by any independent testimony or circumstance of this case, therefore, complicity of accused Sonu @ Rahul with intention to commit rape on the victim is not established. The statement of the victim regarding the manner of commission of rape on her by Sonu @ Rahul S/o Anand Kumar does not sound well and there is no specific particular given that she was forcibly raped by Sonu @ Rahul. On medical examination of the victim no injury of any sort was noted by the doctor on the person of victim and doctor witness has ruled out possibility of gang rape being committed on the victim. On medical examination of the victim no injury of any sort was noted by the doctor on the person of victim and doctor witness has ruled out possibility of gang rape being committed on the victim. All the accused are relatives and cousin brothers, brother-in-law and statement of the victim that one after one committed rape on her in a room in Lucknow, hardly inspires confidence. The victim has also stated that accused Anil did not sexually assault her. The factum of commission of rape at the stage of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate is on the face an improvement and she could not come out with specific description of rape being committed by a number of accused. The victim has also testified that she did not make any statement to the concerned Magistrate and daroga ji that Sonu and Sanjay both committed rape on her considering the dignity and honour of her family. Thus, statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or before the Magistrate concerned under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is wanting in description of gang rape committed by the accused is not proved. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the face of the testimony on record, the trial court was justified in recording aforesaid finding of acquittal under Sections 363, 366, 376 read with 511 IPC and 376(2) (g) IPC against accused Anil, Sonu s/o Om Prakash, Sanjay, Pankaj and Pooja and also acquitting the accused Sonu @ Rahul under Sections 376 (2)(g) IPC and convicting him (Sonu @ Rahul) under Sections 363, 366 IPC is wholly justified. The findings so recorded in both the appeals against the accused need no interference for the aforesaid reasons. However, the findings so recorded by the trial court is hereby affirmed by us. Consequently, the judgment and order in so far as it relates to all the respondents nos.2 to 7 in Appeal No.285 of 2012 with the prayer seeking leave to appeal is refused. Likewise, the finding of conviction recorded against appellant- Sonu @ Rahul s/o Anand in aforesaid Criminal Appeal 2436 of 2012 is affirmed and in final countdown both the appeals- Criminal Miscellaneous Application U/s 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave to Appeal) No.285 of 2012, Satyapal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and Criminal Appeal No.2436 of 2012, Sonu @ Rahul vs. State of Uttar Pradesh are accordingly, dismissed. Appellant- Sonu @ Rahul is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled, he be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the lower court for its intimation and necessary follow-up action.