JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This Criminal Revision is directed against an order of conviction u/s 366, Indian Penal Code and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months awarded against each of the Petitioners. 2. The prosecution case was that on 18-3-1976, P.W. 1 Soubhagini, girl under 18 years of age, had gone to school and while she was sitting in the class, P.W. 7 (the younger brother of Petitioner No. 1 Bauribandhu Panda) went there and told her that her mother had been bitten by a snake and had been removed to the temple of Shankaleswar. The Headmistess of the school, who was then taking the class, asked P.W. 1 to go at once and See her mother. When P.W. 1 came out of the class; P.W. 7 took her to a tempo which was waiting outside. After she had taken her seat in the tempo, both Petitioners came and sat in the tempo. Petitioner No. 1 paid rupee 1/- to P.W. 7 and asked him to purchase plantain for offering bhog to the deity. After P.W. 7 left the place, both the Petitioners sat with P.W. 1 in the tempo and hung a lungi on its back side. When the tempo crossed the temple, P.W. 1 started crying. P.W. 3 the driver of the tempo stopped the vehicle and enquired from P.W. 1 as to why she was crying. He suspected some foul play and expressed his unwillingness to proceed further with the vehicle. But the Petitioners showed him a bottle and said that unless the tempo was driven, they would take poison and put him to trouble. Thereafter, P.W. 3 drove the vehicle to one junction of the roads locally known as Mannappalli junction and said he could not proceed any further. P.W. 3 suggested to P.W. 1 to go back with him to Khallikote, but she did not agree to go alone with him. Thereafter, P.W. 1 was taken to a village. There some drunkards asked the Petitioners to spare her to them, but they did not agree. In the evening, the Petitioners took her to village Gurunthi and requested a barbar to spare a room for their night halt. Thereafter, P.W. 1 was taken to a village. There some drunkards asked the Petitioners to spare her to them, but they did not agree. In the evening, the Petitioners took her to village Gurunthi and requested a barbar to spare a room for their night halt. The barbar (P.W. 4) allowed them to stay in one of the rooms of his house. Petitioner No. 1 and P.W. 1 stayed inside the room while Petitioner No. 2 slept on the outside verandah. At about mid night, P.W. 1 cried out when Petitioner No. 1 attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. Her cries attracted the attention of the inmates of the house. P.W. 4 drove away the Petitioners from the room and locked up the same. Then, the Petitioners and P.W. 1 sat on the verandah of the house and at day dawn they went to village Kesapur. From there the Petitioners took P.W. 1 in another tempo to a hotel. On receipt of a telephonic message from the tempo-driver, the father of P.W. 1 sent P.W. 5 Pravakar Padhi on a motor-cycle. P.W. 5 went to the hotel at Kesapur and found P.W. 1 in the company of both the Petitioners. Then all of them went to Khalikote by bus and P.W. 5 left P.W. 1 in the custody of her father. 3. No information was given to the police about the incident until a news item regarding the same was published in a local daily. After publication of the news item, P.W. 10, the Officer-in-charge of the Rambha police station enquired into the matter. The father of P.W. 1 lodged a report at the police station which was treated as F.I.R. In course of investigation, both the Petitioners were arrested and the victim girl was examined by lady Assistant Surgeon. After due investigation, a charge-sheet u/s 366, Indian Penal Code was submitted against the Petitioners. 4. The Petitioners denied the charge and contended that P.W. 3, the driver of the tempo took away P.W. 1 and threw the blame on them. 5. At the trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and on a consideration of their evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held the Petitioners guilty and inflicted the sentences as indicated above. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and the sentence. 6. 5. At the trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and on a consideration of their evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held the Petitioners guilty and inflicted the sentences as indicated above. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and the sentence. 6. It is urged in this Criminal Revision that the Courts below were not justified in convicting the Petitioners for an offence u/s 366, Indian Penal Code solely on the evidence of the victim girl. 7. It is well settled that the prosecutrix cannot be considered to be an accomplice. As a rule of prudence, however, it has been emphasised that the Court normally look for some corroboration of her testimony in order to satisfy itself that she is telling the truth. The view that, as a matter of law, no conviction without corroboration was possible has not been accepted. The only rule of law is the law of prudence, namely, the advisability of corroboration should present in the mind of the Judge. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction would be allowed to stand. As to what type of corroboration may be required when the Court is of opinion that it is not safe to dispense with that requirement, it has also been laid down that the type of corroboration required must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence with which a person is charged - vide Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, and Madho Ram and Anr. v. The State of U.P. 1973 S.C.D. 173. 8. Having due regard to the above principles, I am of the view that the order of conviction is justified. 9. It was not disputed that the victim girl is under 18 years of age. The date of birth of the girl as mentioned in the school Admission Register is 12-5-1961. Ext. 1/1 is the relevant entry which was proved by P.W. 2, the Headmistress of the school. The lady Asst. Surgeon (P.W. 9) who examined the victim girl during Investigation of the case opined that the age of the girl is between 15 to 17 years. During her evidence in Court the lady Asst. Surgeon has given ample justification for her opinion about the age of the girl. The lady Asst. Surgeon (P.W. 9) who examined the victim girl during Investigation of the case opined that the age of the girl is between 15 to 17 years. During her evidence in Court the lady Asst. Surgeon has given ample justification for her opinion about the age of the girl. Her evidence went unchallenged as the Petitioners declined to cross-examine her. The victim girl gave her age as 16 years at the time of her examination in Court in the year 1977. In consideration of the above evidence, both the Court below concurrently held that P.W. 1 was a minor girl under 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. 10. The victim girl fully supported the prosecution case as narrated above. Her evidence finds ample corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5. P.W. 2 is the Headmistress of the school. Her evidence was that on 18-8-1976 while she was taking the class, a boy aged about 10 to 12 years went to the school and said that the mother of P.W. 1 had been bitten by a snake and the presence of P.W. 1 was necessary. She identified P.W. 7 Laxminarayan Panda as the boy who went to the school and gave the above information. P.W. 7 is the brother of Petitioner No. 1. He relied from his previous statements before the police and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. There is, however, no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 that P.W. 7 went to the school and said that the mother of P.W. 1 bad been bitten by a snake. P.W. 3 is the driver of the tempo in which P.Ws. 1 was taken by the Petitioners from the school. According to him, while the Petitioners and P.W. 1 were sitting in the tempo, he marked P.W. 1 weeping. He stopped the vehicle suspecting some foul play on enquiry, he learnt from P.W. 1 that the Petitioners took her from the school misrepresenting that her mother had been bitten by a snake. He also stated that the Petitioners threatened him that unless the vehicle was driven to the destination they would take poison and put him to trouble. Then be left them at Mananapalli crossing and proceeded to Khallikote. He reported the incident to the father of the girl with whom he had previous acquaintance. He also stated that the Petitioners threatened him that unless the vehicle was driven to the destination they would take poison and put him to trouble. Then be left them at Mananapalli crossing and proceeded to Khallikote. He reported the incident to the father of the girl with whom he had previous acquaintance. His evidence has not been shaken in any manner. P.W. 4 is the barbar of village Gurunthi. He stated that the two Petitioners with P.W. 1 went to his house in the night and told him that they wanted to take shelter in his house for the night. He spared one room of his house. Then Bauribandhu and the girl stayed inside the room and Basanta slept on the outside verandah. Some time thereafter, he heard P.W. 1 crying. Then he asked the Petitioners to go away from the house. The Petitioners and P.W. 1 came out of his house and sat on the verandah. Nothing substantial has been brought out in his cross-examination so as to cast any doubt on his veracity. He belongs to a different locality and there is no apparent reason why he would falsely depose against the Petitioners. P.W. 5 Pravakar Padhi stated that being asked by the father of P.W. 1 he went to Kesapur on a motor-cycle and found P.W. 1 and the two Petitioners in a Punjab Hotel. Then, he took P.W. 1 and left her in the custody of her father. 11. It would appear from the evidence of the above witnesses that the girl was put in the tempo by the trick of the Petitioners, and she was taken to different places. In the night while she was in the house of the barbar (P.W. 4) at Gurunathi, the Petitioner No. 1 attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. From the facts proved, no other inference is possible except that the girl was taken with the object that she might be subjected to illicit intercourse. Although there is no evidence to show that Petitioner No. 2 made any attempt to have sexual intercourse with P.W. 1, yet he actively participated in kidnapping the girl. He must have known that it was likely that the girl would be forced to illicit intercourse with Petitioner No. 1. 12. The convictions of both the Petitioners are, therefore, justified, but the sentences appear to be severe. While, therefore, maintaining the convictions. He must have known that it was likely that the girl would be forced to illicit intercourse with Petitioner No. 1. 12. The convictions of both the Petitioners are, therefore, justified, but the sentences appear to be severe. While, therefore, maintaining the convictions. I would reduce the sentence of imprisonment to a period of three years to be undergone by each of the Petitioners. The sentences of fine are set aside. 13. Subject to the above modifications in the sentence, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. The fines; if already realised, be refunded. Final Result : Dismissed