JUDGMENT : Mrs. Sabina, J. 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 85/1989 registered at Police Station, Shivdaspura, District Jaipur qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC). 2. Prosecution story in brief is that the appellant had kidnapped prosecutrix who was aged about 14-15 years and had raped her. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellant and co-accused Ramji Lal. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined twenty one witnesses during trial. Appellant Nehnu Ram @ Narendra when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 denied the allegations levelled against him. Appellant examined one witness in his defence. 5. est him. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix was aged 17 to 19 years. In this regard learned counsel has placed reliance on statement of DW-1 Dr. B.L. Bhatia. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-15 Dr. P.C. Vyas in his cross-examination had deposed that fusion of radius head takes place between the age of 14 to 16 years. At the most it could be plus or minus one year. Learned counsel has further submitted that prosecutrix had travelled with the appellant from place to place and had stayed with him for two months at Kota but had not made any complaint to anyone. 7. Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the appeal. 8. Star witness of the prosecution in the present case, the prosecutrix, appeared in the witness box as PW-16. She deposed that appellant was working in their shop. She had studied up to sixth class. On 22.02.1989 she had gone with her mother to the house of her parental aunt. On 24.02.1989 she had gone with her aunt and her (aunt) grandson to the doctor. At about 11 am her aunt went inside the clinic and she was climbing the stairs. In the meantime, appellant called her and told her that her brother had met with an accident. She immediately went towards the appellant. Appellant made her sit in an auto and took her to Lata Talkies. When the prosecutrix inquired about her brother from the appellant he had threatened her with a knife. In the meantime, appellant called her and told her that her brother had met with an accident. She immediately went towards the appellant. Appellant made her sit in an auto and took her to Lata Talkies. When the prosecutrix inquired about her brother from the appellant he had threatened her with a knife. Appellant also told her that in the area where he had taken her, it was dominated by ‘gundas’. Thereafter appellant took her by bus to Jobner and then he took her to Phulera. She was kept in a hotel at Phulera. Appellant told her that he would perform marriage with her. At night appellant took her from Phulera to Delhi by train and she was kept in a hotel where the appellant started teasing her. Thereafter they left for the station at Delhi and she was taken to Nasik by train. They reached Nasik at 9 pm and she was kept in a hotel where also appellant started teasing her and raped her. In the morning appellant took her to Shirdi where she was kept in a hotel for two days and was raped by the appellant. Thereafter she was brought to Nasik and was kept for two days in a Dharmshala. Appellant again raped her. After two days appellant brought the prosecutrix to Kota and there also she was raped by the appellant. Thereafter appellant brought her to Ajmer along with his friend Ramji Lal. At the platform, brother of the appellant came along with a lawyer and took her to the court and she was made to sign on 5-7 papers. Thereafter she was brought to Jaipur where she was kept in a house for two days and was raped by the appellant. Then appellant took her to the house of his sister. Brother-in-law of the appellant informed the police and she was recovered by the police and was got medically examined. 9. PW-15 Dr. P.C. Vyas deposed that on 7.05.1989 he had examined the prosecutrix to ascertain her age. As per his report Ex. P- 16, prosecutrix was between 14-16 years. 10. PW-17 Dr. Manju Maheshwari deposed that she had medically examined the prosecutrix on 07.05.1989. She proved the report Ex. P/17. As per Ex. P/17 prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse. However, opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse could be given after receipt of report of chemical examinor. 11. As per his report Ex. P- 16, prosecutrix was between 14-16 years. 10. PW-17 Dr. Manju Maheshwari deposed that she had medically examined the prosecutrix on 07.05.1989. She proved the report Ex. P/17. As per Ex. P/17 prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse. However, opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse could be given after receipt of report of chemical examinor. 11. PW-4 Suresh Chand (complainant) while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 27.02.1989 he had lodged the report that his sister was missing since 24.02.1989 at about 11:30 am. He has further deposed that the prosecutrix was aged about 13 years. 12. PW-1 Shripal, brother of the prosecutrix has deposed that the prosecutrix was aged about 15-16 years and had gone missing on 24.02.1989. 13. PW-8 Kamla Devi, parental aunt of the prosecutrix deposed that the prosecutrix was her niece and about 1/2 years ago she came to her along with her mother from Bombay. Appellant was working as a Munim with her brother and asked her that he should be employed by her. She told the appellant that she will talk to her husband. However, her husband declined to give job to the appellant. She had gone to the hospital along with the prosecutrix and her grandson. Prosecutrix stayed outside the gate of the hospital. When she returned, she found that the prosecutrix was not present at the gate. She searched for the prosecutrix and was told by the nearby vender that the prosecutrix had been taken away by one boy in an auto on the pretext that her brother had met with an accident. 14. Ex. P/25 is the transfer certificate issued in favour of the prosecutrix and as per the same, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 10.07.1976. Ex. P-28 is the copy of scholar register wherein date of birth of the prosecutrix has been entered as 10.07.1976. The said documents were proved by PW-20 Shiv Lahri Sharma, Principal of the school. 15. Thus, as per the documents Ex. P-25 to Ex. P-28 proved by PW-20 the age of the prosecutrix was twelve years and seven months at the time of occurrence. Appellant in order to rebut the age of the prosecutrix has examined DW-1 Dr. B.L. Bhatia. However, the statement of Dr. B.L. Bhatia fails to rebut the deposition of PW-15 Dr. P.C. Vyas. P-25 to Ex. P-28 proved by PW-20 the age of the prosecutrix was twelve years and seven months at the time of occurrence. Appellant in order to rebut the age of the prosecutrix has examined DW-1 Dr. B.L. Bhatia. However, the statement of Dr. B.L. Bhatia fails to rebut the deposition of PW-15 Dr. P.C. Vyas. As per PW-15 the age of the prosecutrix was between 14 to 16 years. As per the school record, date of birth of the prosecutrix was 10.07.1976. The Principal of the school has duly proved the documents Ex. P-25 to Ex. P-28. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the document Ex. P-25 to Ex. P-28. Hence, there is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said documents had not been duly proved on record by the prosecution. The Principal of the school appeared as a witness and proved the documents Ex. P-25 to Ex. P-28 which were as per the record of the school. Thus, in the present case, prosecution had been successful in proving that the prosecutrix was aged less than 16 years at the time of occurrence. 16. Prosecutrix had categorically deposed that she had been taken by the appellant on the pretext that her brother had met with an accident. Appellant had taken her from place to place and had raped her. It is the case of the prosecutrix that she had stayed with the appellant at Kota for about two months. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant had performed marriage with the prosecutrix. Rather in her cross-examination, a suggestion was put to the prosecutrix that she had illicit relations with her teacher Kailash and had been writing letters to him. It was also suggested to the prosecutrix that she knew another boy named Ashok. Statement of the prosecutrix being natural inspires confidence. Prosecutrix has alleged that she had been raped by the appellant and had been threatened by him. Moreover, in the present case, the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age and consequently her consent if any for sexual intercourse was immaterial. 17. Thus, in the present case, prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that the appellant after kidnapping the prosecutrix had committed the offence of rape. 17. Thus, in the present case, prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that the appellant after kidnapping the prosecutrix had committed the offence of rape. Prosecutrix version that she had been raped is duly corroborated from medical evidence. 18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.