went to several stayed with the accused in lodges and that the accused had intercourse with her, She, however, added that the accused had intercourse with her, She, however added that the accused was having intercourse against her will. She was cross-examined at length and we find several omissions in her previous statement, In the cross-examination the defence tried to elicit from her as to what exactly the accused did to her in those places during night. She went on saying that the accused did something to her which he ought not to have done. She admitted that her statement was the some before the police also. The learned Single Judge of the High Court especially pointed out this aspect-and observed that it was very difficult to infer that the accused had intercourse with her, Therefore in the absence of some other evidence to support the prosecution case that the accused had intercourse with her, in our view, the High Court was not wrong in holding that the offence under Section 376 I. P.C. is not made out. Now, coming to the offence of kidnapping punishable under Section 366 I.P.C., again her age is doubtful. That apart, P. W.7's evidence shows that she went with the accused voluntarily. When the age is in doubt, then the question of'taking her away front lawful guardianship does not arise. However, the second requirement that taking or enticing away a minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian is an essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping. In the instant case, we are not concerned with enticement. But what we have to find out is whether the part played by the
