The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are:(a) P.W. 4 Shankari the young victim aged about 14 years, the daughter of P.W. 1 Ekambaram and P.W. 15 Parimala was doing her VIII Standard in S. S.K.V. School, Kancheepuram during the relevant period.On 11.2.98 at about 9.00 A.M., A-1 with an intention of marrying her, went to the School in M.O. 1 auto and informed her that her mother P.W. 15 was admitted in the hospital.She immediately informed her Class Teacher examined as P.W. 5 Rajeswari and proceeded with A-1 in the auto.She was brought to Kamatchiamman Temple by A-1 in the said auto and made her wait for 15 minutes.Thereafter, A-1 accompanied by A-2 took her on 11.2.98 at 1.00 P.M. to the house of A-2's grandmother P.W. 7 Logammal, which is situate at Kaliampoondi.P.W. 4 when questioned the same, both of them threatened him.Till the morning of 12.2.98, A-1, A-2 and P.W. 4 stayed in P.W. 7's house.On 12th morning A-3 came there and joined the other accused.Then, they took P.W. 4 to Vellore, and from there, A-1 and A-3 took P.W. 4 to Bangalore leaving A-2 at Vellore.On 13th, A-1, A-3 and P.W. 4 reached Bangalore and took her to the house of A-3's sister P.W. 9 Rajeswari situate at Pudhuvijayaraghavapuram.P.W. 4 was kept from 13.2.98 till 24.2.98 in P.W. 9's house.During the said period A-1 had forcible sexual intercourse on P.W. 4 on number of occasions.(b) At about 2 P.M. on 12.2.98, P.W. 1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P.W. 16 Kandan, Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, on the strength of Ex.P. 1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 209/98 under 'girl missing'.P. 5 printed F.I.R. was sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court.P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and their statements were recorded.Subsequently, the case was altered to S. 366 of I.P.C. The alteration report was also sent to the concerned Court.On 24.3.98, P.W. 19, Pugazhendhi, Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station took up investigation.He received the information that A-1 and P.W. 4 were produced before the Court.P.W. 19 proceeded to the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kancheepuram and made a request for sending A-1 and P.W. 4 for medical examination.On 25.3.98 P.W. 18 Dr. Parasakthi examined P.W. 4 victim girl and issued a medical certificate under Ex.On examination, the Doctor found the sexual offences committed.On 26.3.98 P.W. 20 Dr. Gururaj examined the accused and issued Exs.P. 14 and P15 certificates.He also examined P.W. 4 and issued Ex.P. 16 age certificate.On the basis of the statement of the victim, the case was altered to Ss 366(A) and 376 of I.P.C. On 14.4.98 P.W. 19 seized M.O. 1 auto under Ex.P. 11 mahazar in front of two witnesses.On the same day on information he arrested A-2 and A-3 and recorded their confessional statements in front of the witnesses.At about 7.45 P.M., M.Os. 2 and 3 (series), dresses and notebooks were recovered from A-2's tailoring shop under Ex.P. 12 mahazar.On the same day at about 8.00 P.M., on the basis of A-3's confessional statement, M.Os. 4 and 5 letters were recovered from A-3 under Ex.P. 13 mahazar.On 15.4.98 A-2 and A-3 were sent for remand.On 30.4.98, the case was handed over to P.W. 14 Sudarsan, Sub Inspector of Police, Siva Kanchi Police Station on the point of jurisdiction.P.W. 14 on 26.5.98 registered a transferred case in Crime No. 486/98 under Ss 366 and 376 IPC and prepared Ex.P. 4 printed F.I.R. and placed before P.W. 21 Rajkumar, Inspector of Police for investigation.P.W. 12 conducted further investigation, examined P.Ws. 5, 6 and 11 and recorded their statements.On 2.4.99 he examined P.Ws. 8 and 16 and recorded their statements.He examined further witnesses and P.Ws. 18 and 20 Doctors and other witnesses also and recorded their statements.P.W. 4, a young girl of 14 years, who was studying VIII Standard in S. S.K.V. School at Kancheepuram, was kidnapped from her School on 11.2.98 at 9.00 A.M. on the misrepresentation made by A-1 that her mother was not doing well.She was taken in an auto to Kamatchiamman Temple where A-2 joined with them.She was then taken to Kaliampoondi, the place where the house of the grandmother of A-2 was situate.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.The appellants, who stood charged and tried for the offences under Ss 366 and 376 of I.P.C. in respect of A-1 and Ss 366, 366 r/w 109 and 376 r/w 109 of I.P.C. in respect of A-2 and A-3 have brought forth these two appeals against the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the lower Court.On completion of the investigation, the succeeding Officer of P.W. 21 filed a charge sheet against the accused under Ss 366 and 376 of I.P.C.In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked 17 exhibits and 5 material objects.On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under S. 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.On the side of the defence, one Suresh, a photographer was examined as D.W. 1 and 3 exhibits were marked.After hearing the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials, the trial Court found A-1 guilty under Ss 363 and 376(1) of I.P.C., while it found A-2 and A-3 guilty under S. 363 read with 109 of I.P.C. and sentenced A-1 to undergo 3 years R.I. under S. 363 IPC and 7 years R.I. under S. 376(1) IPC and A-2 and A-3 to undergo 3 years R.I. under S. 363 r/w 109 IPC.Thus, these two appeals have arisen.The learned Counsel advancing his arguments for the appellants in both the appeals interalia made the following submissions.P.W. 4 has not spoken anything regarding the marriage or the intention of the first accused to marry P.W. 4 against her will.The prosecution has not proved that the first accused informed the accused that her mother was admitted in the hospital or the victim was taken out from the School.The evidence of P.W. 20 Doctor and Ex.P. 16 age certificate would disclose that the age of the victim was more than 18 years, and thus, she was not a minor.A reading of Ex.D1 a letter, which was written by P.W. 4 to the Police Officers in respect of her age difference and the wrong entries in the school certificates would clearly reveal that it was one out of her own accord, and in that regard, no one of the accused had any role to play.The prosecution relied on a birth certificate wherein the name of the victim was not given, and they have also relied on a School Certificate.It is nowhere found in the evidence, who was the author of the school certificate and the age given therein, and hence, the age of the victim could not be decided from those documents adduced.As per the evidence of P.W. 18 Doctor who examined the victim and gave Ex.P. 10 wound certificate, there is nothing to indicate that she either sustained any injury in her body or in her private part.P.W. 4 has disclosed that the accused were known to her already.P.W. 19 was not empowered to investigate the case, which was out of his jurisdiction.All the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile, and thus, what is available for the prosecution was the testimonies of the interested witnesses.It is pertinent to note that the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly, but, the same was not explained by the prosecution in any manner.From the available evidence, it would be clear that P.W. 4 out of love affair left from her house and not by compulsion of anybody.Under such circumstances, the lower Court should have outrightly rejected the case of the prosecution and acquitted them, and hence, in view of the submissions made, the appellants/accused are entitled for an acquittal in the hands of this Court.They stayed there till next day morning namely 12.2.98, where A-3 also joined with them.From there A-1 and A-3 took her to Bangalore, leaving A-2, and all of them stayed in the house of P.W. 9, the sister of A-3 till 24.2.98, and the sexual assault was committed by A-1 on her on number of occasions.P.W. 1 has categorically given evidence in respect of all the above facts.Despite the cross examination in full, her evidence remained unshaken.P.W. 5, the Class Teacher of P.W. 4 has been examined as to the fact that P.W. 4 got permission from her to leave from the class room on the reason that her mother was suddenly hospitalised.Near Kamatchiamman Temple, she was made to wait for sometime, where A-2 has also joined.From that place, they have taken her to P.W. 7's house at Kaliampoondi.Admittedly, P.W. 7 was the grandmother of A-2, and hence, no one could expect her to speak anything about her grandson.P.W. 7 has turned hostile.From the evidence of P.W. 4, it would be clear that on 11.2.98 from 1.00 P.M. till next morning, they were staying in P.W. 7's house.On 12.2.98 A-3 has joined them and A-1 to A-3 have taken P.W. 4 to Vellore.From Vellore, A-1 and A-3 have taken her to Bangalore by Bus, leaving A-2 at Vellore.Her evidence as spoken to above would clearly reveal that A-1 with the full assistance and abetment of A-2 and A-3 have kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship and had taken her to different places.It is pertinent to note that on 12.2.98 itself, a complaint was lodged at 2.00 P.M. by P.W. 1, on the strength of which, a case was registered by P.W. 16 Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station as one for girl missing.The printed F.I.R. was immediately despatched to the concerned Magistrate's Court.Then, the statements of witnesses were recorded.Subsequently the case was altered to S. 366 of I.P.C. After A-1 and P.W. 4 surrendered before the Court, they were subjected to medical examination.P.W. 18 Doctor Parasakthi examined P.W. 4, the victim girl and has issued Ex.P. 10 medical certificate opining that her vagina admitted two fingers without pain and the hymen was absent.On 26.3.98 P.W. 20 Dr. Gururaj examined the accused and issued Exs.P14 and P15 certificates.The medical evidence adduced through the Doctors and the medical certificates would clearly corroborate the evidence of P.W. 4, the victim.The contention of the appellants' side that all the independent witnesses have turned hostile is of no consequence, since the evidence of the young victim is trustworthy and the same inspires the confidence of the Court, and apart from that, it is fully supported by the other evidence narrated above.The main contention that was raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that in order to prove the age of the victim, the lower Court has relied on three documents namely Exs.P. 3 is the school certificate, while Ex.Added further the learned Counsel that P.W. 20 Doctor has given Ex.P. 16 certificate and has found through radiology test that she was 18 years old, and hence, she was not a minor.This contention has got to be thoroughly discountenanced.In the instant case, the school certificate of the victim has been filed along with the birth certificate.In the school certificate, the name of the girl along with the date of birth is given.P.W. 1 the father and P.W. 15 the mother of P.W. 4 both have been examined.There is no material available to indicate that A-1 at the time of kidnapping her committed the offences with an intention of marrying her, and hence, the lower court has found A-1 guilty under S. 376(1) of I.P.C. and rightly too.The lower Court was also right in finding A-1 guilty under S. 363 of IPC and A-2 and A-3 guilty under S. 363 read with 109 of IPC.The Court does not find nothing to interfere in the conviction recorded by the lower Court.Coming to the question of punishment, the trial Court has awarded 3 years R.I. to A-1 under S. 363 of I.P.C. and 7 years R.I. under S. 376(1) of I.P.C. The Court is unable to find anything to interfere in the sentence imposed on the first accused.So far as the sentence imposed on A-2 and A-3 is concerned, the lower Court has awarded 3 years R.I. under S. 363 read with 109 IPC.With the above modification, the criminal appeal in C.A. No. 986/02 is dismissed.

Relevant sections: Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code