Ranjana Pandya, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 13.10.2015 passed by Shri Harkesh Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Lalitput in S.T. No. 27 of 2008 arising out of Crime No. 2755 of 2006 (State v/s. Mukesh Singh Yadav and others), under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station -Lalitpur, District -Lalitpur, whereby accused Mukesh Singh Yadav, who was found guilty and was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5000/ - fine under Sec. 363 I.P.C. and further convicted under Sec. 366/34 for seven years imprisonment and Rs. 7000/ - fine and further convicted under Sec. 376 I.P.C. for seven years imprisonment and Rs. 7000/ - fine. Accused Rajesh Rai was found guilty and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 4000/ - fine under Sec. 363/34 and five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5000/ -fine under Sec. 366 I.P.C. with default stipulation.
(2.) Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that a written F.I.R. was lodged by Rao Raja on 28.12.2006 stating that his daughter aged about 16 years was enticed away by the accused -appellants namely Mukesh Singh Yadav and Rajesh on 19.11.2006, when she had gone in the village to attend the call of nature. Bhawani Singh and Ram Kumar belonging to the village has stated that they had seen the victim with Mukesh and Rajesh at the Railway Station. When Mukesh was questioned as to whether he was going, he stated that the father of the victim was sick and they were going to see him. Gyani Rajak belonging to the same village had also informed the informant that he had seen Ram Kishan, Mukesh and Rakesh with the victim. She was being traced, but she could not be traced. The informant had full belief that his daughter was enticed away by Mukesh, Rajesh and Ram Kishan. On the basis of this F.I.R., investigation was entrusted to the Investigating Officer.
(3.) The prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is Rao Raja, the informant, who proved the written report as Exhibit Ka -1 and the recovery memo as Exhibit Ka -2. P.W. 2 is Dr. Mukesh Kumar Chaudhary, who proved the pathological report as Exhibit Ka -3. P.W. 3 is Dr. Alka Agrawal, who examined the victim. She did not find any injury on the body of the victim and opined the age of the victim to be above 18 years and proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka -4 and supplementary report as Exhibit Ka -5. P.W. 4 is Head Constable Ram Kishan, who scribed the chick report. He also proved the copy of the G.D. as Exhibit Ka -6. P.W. 5 is Hari Singh in whose presence the accused alongwith the victim were arrested. He proved the recovery memo as Exhibit Ka -7. P.W. 6 is the victim. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer, who prepared the site plan and proved it as Exhibit Ka -8. Further he submitted the charge -sheet against the accused persons and proved it as Exhibit Ka -9.;