N. L. TIBREWAL, J. - (1.)THE appellant Shyam Sunder has filed this appeal, being aggrieved against the judgment dated November 24, 1979 of Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 31/79, convicting and sentencing him u/s 361 IPC to one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250/ - (in default of payment of fine to one month's R. I.) and u/s 366 IPC to four years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine to two months' R. I. ).
(2.)THE brief facts of the case may be narrated. Mathura Lal s/o Daulat Ram made a report, Ex. P/1, at Police Station Suraj Pole-Udaipur, at 8. 00 a. m. on 28. 10. 78. THE report was signed by Mathura Lal, who is the father of Mst. Snehlata, alias Tammu. In the report it was given out that Mst. Snehlata had disappeared since 10. 30 a. m. of October 26, 1978 and was not traceable inspite of the search made.
On this report, police registered the case u/ss 363 and 366 I. P. C. On October 31, 1978, the father of the girl took her to the police station telling that she had returned to the house. Police then got medical examination of the girl done. The accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed u/ss 363, 366 and 376 IPC in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur (North ).

The accused was committed to the court of Session Judge, Udaipur, where charges u/ss 363, 366 and 376 IPC were framed and read out to him. During the course of trial, 14 witnesse were examined by the prosecution. One witness, namely Smt. Lehari Bai, was examined as the defence witness.

After completion of the trial, the learned trial court held that Mst. Snehlata had gone voluntarily, on her own accord, with the accused appellant and thereafter, they visited several cities, The learned trial court acquitted the appellant from the charge u/s 376 IPC, and holding that the age of Mst. Snehlata was below 18 years of age, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid,

The learned counsel for the appellant urged before me that Mst. Snehlata was above 18 years of age, In the alternative it was further submitted that Mst. Snehlata as per the finding of the trial court, had gone with the appellant voluntarily and on her own accord and as such, no offence u/s 363 or 366 IPC is made out against the appellant,

(3.)IN this connection the statement of Snehlata (PW/7) is relevant, This witness has stated that when she was going to the market, then the accused* appellant forcibly got her seated in a tempo and took her to Udai Pole, where she was kept in a room, She also stated that the room was locked from outside and, thereafter, the accused brought new clothes, which were worn by her, Then they went to the Railway Station, Udaipyr. They went to Nathdwara where they lived on the third floor of a house, She also stated that at Nath-dwara the accused appellant had sexual intercourse with her after threatening her. Thereafter, they went to Chittor, where they stayed in a Tourist Bungalow, There also the accused had sexual intercourse, From Chittor they went to Ujjain and at tjjjain they lived at the house of the sister of the appellant, She stated that the accused left her at his sister's house and returned after 2 1/2 hours. From his sister's house, the accused brought her at Udaipur and took her to a hotel, from, the hotel, she was taken to her father's house, This witness has been cross-examined at length. She was also confronted with her previous statements Ex. D/l add Ex 0d/2. After scrutiny of the entire evidence of this witness, the learned trial court held that she had gone with the appellant voluntarily on her own accord, The learned trial court rejected the testimony of this witness that the accused-appellant had put fear on her and under the fear committed sexual intercourse.
Pw/11 Dr, J. S. Matta has opined the age of Mst. Snehlata between 12 to 14 years.

Pw/1 Mathuralal, the father of the girl has given the age of Mst, Snehlata as 14 years at the time of the incident, He further stated that on the day Mst. Snehlata had left the house, she was beaten by him.