JUDGMENT : (ILESH J. VORA, J.) : 1. This conviction appeal has been preferred at the instance of appellant convict. 2. The present appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Old) is against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court, Gondal, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.18 of 2012, wherein, the appellant came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Old). At the end of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506(2) of the IPC (old) and sentenced as under: Sections Punishment S. 376 of the IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default SI for three months. S. 363 of the IPC RI for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default SI for one month. S. 366 of the IPC RI for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default SI for one month. S. 506(2) of the IPC RI for one month and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default SI for three days. The judgment was rendered on 14.03.2013 and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. We have heard learned counsel Mr.P.V. Patadiya appearing for and on behalf of the convict-appellant and Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. 4. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the course of trial is that the mother of the victim Sardaben originally belongs to Dist: Junagadh. However, at the relevant time of the incident, she settled at Gondal and doing labour work in nearby area. The accused Yunush Satar Sha belongs to Junagadh. He used to come at the house of Sardaben. On 09.07.2010, the accused came to house of Sardaben and stayed there for a day. On 10.07.2010, when Sardaben went to the market to purchase a grocery, the accused lured the victim aged about 14 years old and he promised that he will pay Rs.200/- and also arrange for wheat. The victim i.e. daughter of Sardaben went with the accused to accompany of accused and they came to Junagadh. On the second day, the accused taken the victim at the dilapidated room near the railway crossing, Dhoraji Road. The accused asked for sexual favour for which the victim has refused. The victim i.e. daughter of Sardaben went with the accused to accompany of accused and they came to Junagadh. On the second day, the accused taken the victim at the dilapidated room near the railway crossing, Dhoraji Road. The accused asked for sexual favour for which the victim has refused. On refusal, the accused beaten her by slapping and threatened that if she would not permit him for intercourse, she will be killed. On that day, he twice made intercourse, as a result, the victim sustained injuries on her external and internal parts of the body. Thereafter, the accused left her at the Gondal Highway Road. The victim reached at the home. The mother Sardaben was in search of the victim and after seeing the victim at the home, she asked that where she had gone. The mother noticed the bloodstain on the cloths of the victim. The victim thereafter narrated the entire incident of rape allegedly committed by the accused. The mother consulted her brother. She had gone at Junagadh where she lodged an FIR against the accused. The FIR transferred to Gondal Taluka Police Station. After completion of the formalities of the registration of the offence, the investigation being undertaken by Gondal Police. The victim was sent for medical examination at Gondal as well as Rajkot Government Hospital where the doctors found injuries on the private parts. The doctor has opined that the menstrual cycle of the victim still not started. The ossification test was done and age of the victim determined between 11 and 14. The police had obtained the school leaving certificate from the school where she studied and as per the certificate, the date of birth i.e. 22.05.1998 was recorded in her school register. The accused after the incident was absconded. Later on, he was arrested and his medical examination was also done. The investigating agency recorded the various statements of the witnesses and collected and seized the cloths of the victim as well as accused. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the I.O. found a sufficient material for the charge and accordingly, the chargesheet against the accused came to be filed. 5. On the basis of material on record, the charge was framed against the appellant at Exh. 6 and the appellant pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the Sessions Court accordingly. 6. 5. On the basis of material on record, the charge was framed against the appellant at Exh. 6 and the appellant pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the Sessions Court accordingly. 6. In order to prove the case against the appellant, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents to prove its case as per the following table: 7. Oral evidence PW no. 1 – Exh. 9 Rameshbhai Odhadbhai, panch witness PW no. 2 – Exh. 11 Rajakbhai Umarbhai Hingolja, panch witness PW no. 3 – Exh. 14 Firojbhai Hajibhai Jhokhiya, panch witness PW no. 4 – Exh. 20 Sureshbhai Valjibhai Vanvi, panch witness PW no. 5 – Exh. 22 Dr. Jitendrabhai Jivrambhai Joshi, Medical Officer PW no. 6 – Exh. 26 Dr. Rampravesh Mahendrabhai Shah, Medical Officer PW no. 7 – Exh. 31 Dr. Narendrabhai Pravinbhai Vekariya, Medical Officer PW no. 8 – Exh. 39 Shardaben Rambhai Vaniya, Complainant PW no. 9 – Exh. 42 Victim girl PW no. 10 – Exh. 43 Shrikantbhai Nawabbhai Kurmi, Investigating Officer PW no. 11 – Exh. 49 Anakbhai Bhurabhai Geeda, ASI PW no. 12 - Exh. 51 Minakshiben Chimanlal Joshi, witness PW no. 13 – Exh. 54 Vinodrai Merambhai Selar, Investigating Officer 8. Documentary evidence Exh. 10 Panchama of recovery of the clothes of victim Exh. 15 Panchnama of place of incident Exh. 21 Arrest panchnama Exh. 23 Medical certificate Exh. 27, 32 Medical certificates of victim Exh. 40 Complaint Exh. 44 Order to take charge of investigation Exh. 45 Report of heinous offence Exh. 46 Note to register complaint Exh. 47 Copy of zero-FIR Exh. 55 Note of forwarding muddamal Exh. 56 Receipt of FSL Exh. 57 FSL report Exh. 60 FSL report 9. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (old) with regard to incriminating circumstances made against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and he denied it and not lead any evidence in defence. 10. The trial Court, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant – accused as stated in the earlier part of this judgment. 11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant – original accused is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 12. 10. The trial Court, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant – accused as stated in the earlier part of this judgment. 11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant – original accused is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 12. Mr.P.V. Patadiya, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the accused, assailing the judgment and order of conviction, submitted that the testimony of minor victim PW:9 is not creditworthy because the same is riddle with contradiction, omission and exaggeration which have been brought on record. That the findings of the Court-below holding that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence is apparently contrary to law as prosecution has not adduced any evidence in order to show that on what basis, the date of birth of the victim was recorded in her school records, and therefore, in absence of admissible evidence with respect to date of birth, the Trial Court could not have relied on the date of birth mentioned in the school records. That the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts that the victim had left her parental home on her own volition and therefore, the conviction as recorded by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law. 13. Mr.Patadiya, would further submit that the prosecution miserably failed to prove and establish that at the relevant time, the victim was below 16 years old and therefore, considering the conduct of the victim and other evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 14. On the other hand, Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State, has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the Trial Court. He would urge that the testimony of the victim is truthful and supported by the medical evidence and there is no material to show that the victim or her mother had any motive to falsely implicate the accused and therefore, the learned Trial Court, after close scrutiny of the evidence of the victim, has rightly come to a conclusion that the victim was below 16 years old and she was lured by the accused with intent to illicit intercourse and thus, therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial Court do not warrant interference. 15. 15. We have considered the submissions made by learned advocates appearing for both the parties, judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court and the entire evidence recorded by the trial Court during the course of the trial. 16. Before we proceed to examine the impugned judgment, it may be desirable to refer to the settled legal principle which has to be applied in the instant case. The appellant – accused has been charged with kidnapping and rape of the girl aged about 16 years. It is well settled that the testimony of the victim in a case of sexual offence is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case, disclosed that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 17. In the instant case, the testimony of the mother of the victim Shardaben Vaniya was recorded which reads thus: “That on the day i.e. 09.07.2010, the accused came to her home and stayed there. She has further stated that on the next day, when she went to purchase sugar and tea in the market, the accused and victim were alone at the home and when she came at home, she did not find her daughter and victim. She waited till evening but she could not get any input of the daughter. On the next day, after getting leave from her employer, she went in search of victim and then, by evening, the victim came at home. She noticed the bloodstain on the cloths of the victim. On inquiry, the victim told her that the accused under the pretext to give Rs.200/- and wheat, taken her to Bhesan and on next day, was taken to secluded place, near railway crossing, Dhoraji road where she was forcibly raped by the accused and when resisted, the accused slapped her and threatened to kill her. During the cross examination, nothing brought on record that the witness falsely implicated the accused.” 18. Before the Trial Court, the victim PW:9 Exh.42 was examined. She has narrated the entire incident. During the cross examination, nothing brought on record that the witness falsely implicated the accused.” 18. Before the Trial Court, the victim PW:9 Exh.42 was examined. She has narrated the entire incident. She has also stated that at the relevant time, she was aged about 14 years. She has also narrated the facts of medical examination done by the doctors and also confirmed the medical history. She also identified the accused in the Court and her cloths seized during the investigation. During her cross examination, except denial, nothing particular being asked by the defence that she is falsely involved the accused with other motive. 19. In order to prove the age of the victim, the witness Minakshiben Joshi PW:12 has been examined. The witness is serving with Kumar Shala No.6. She produced the school record Exhs.52 and 53 which are school leaving and school register to establish the facts that the date of birth of the victim is 22.05.1998. 20. So far as medical evidence is concerned, the prosecution has examined Dr.Rampravesh Shah, Medical Officer, Gondal Civil Hospital. The said witness PW:6, has stated that the victim was brought before him for her medical examination. On examination, it came to his notice that till date, the menstrual cycle of the victim has not started. He found the bloodstain under garments of the victim. He also found bruise injuries on her both legs. On examination of the private parts, he found that fresh tear in the hymen and injuries in the vagina. The victim was referred to higher center for further examination and age determination. Dr.Narendra Vikariya PW:7 Exh.31, who had been examined the victim, has noted rapture of hymen swelling in the vagina and it was painful. The ossification test shows that the age of the victim would be between 11 and 13 years. 21. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW:13, it has been brought on record that after the incident, the accused absconded for a period of one year and more. The samples which were collected by the doctors, sent by the Investigating Officer for forensic examination and the same have been proved (Exhs.56 to 60). 22. On analysis of the oral as well as documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court while determining the age of the appellant, has not committed any error either on facts or law. 22. On analysis of the oral as well as documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court while determining the age of the appellant, has not committed any error either on facts or law. The mother of the victim PW:8 and victim herself PW:9 have stated that at the relevant time, the age was below 15 years. The medical evidence would indicative of the facts that the menstrual cycle of the victim was not started. The secondary sex characters of the victim were not developed. There was a bloodstain mark found on the cloths of the victim and hymen found tear and injuries marks were found on the external as well as internal body of the victim. The Principal of the school PW:12 has produced the school record wherein the date of birth of the victim i.e. 22.05.1998 was recorded at the time of admission. The victim is belonged to lower strata of the society and her father died before the incident. The issue raised by the appellant that there is a contradiction in the name of the victim’s father which creates suspicious on the birth date mentioned in the school leaving. On careful reading of the evidence on record, the issue as pointed out has been clarified by the witnesses that whey there is a difference in the name. Thus, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court has not solely relied on the school leaving certificate to determine the age of the victim, but has considered the relevant and material medical evidence to decide the issue of the age. In such circumstances, the findings of the Trial Court on the issue of age are based on the evidence on record which does not require any interference. 23. So far as reliability and truthfulness of the evidence of the victim is concerned, on reanalysis of the evidence of the victim PW:9, we found that the testimony of the victim about her kidnapping and rape fully corroborated by the medical evidence. On the day of incident, she was taken by the accused under the pretext to give her Rs.200/- and on promise to give a wheat. On the day of incident, she was taken by the accused under the pretext to give her Rs.200/- and on promise to give a wheat. On the second day, she was taken to dilapidated house which was situated at the secluded place where the accused demanded a favour of sex and the same was denied by her and on denial, she was slapped twice by the accused and threatened her that she would be killed. Therefore, the accused had induced her and by threatening her had forcibly ravished her sexually. It is admitted facts that the accused was known to the mother of the victim and there is no dispute about his identity. The accused by taking disadvantage of the situation, took the victim with him in absence of victim’s mother. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the entire evidence of the victim is reliable, natural and inspire confidence and relying on her evidence, it is established and proved that the victim was below 16 years old and she was sexually assaulted and raped by the appellant accused. 25. Thus, for the reasons recorded, the prosecution has proved its case with sufficient oral and documentary evidence against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (Old) and we are satisfied that the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty and convicted him under the aforesaid offences. So far as sentence is concerned, the punishment of life imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed by the accused and therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the punishment awarded by the Trial Court. We do not find any reason warranting interference with the conviction of the appellant and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him and other punishment as recorded above. 26. Resultently, this appeal lacks merits and stands dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The R & P be sent to the Trial Court henceforth.