K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of the judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh-Kondhmals, Phulbani, convicting the appellants under S. 363, I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to undergo various terms of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fines. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is as follows : according to the caste custom, P. W. 1 was to marry the victim girl Surekha (P. W. 3) and so on the date of occurrence, namely, 24-11-1982 in the evening, the former was bringing the latter from the house of his father-in-law to his own house for the subsequent performance of marriage. Gita (P. W. 4), elder sister of Surekha (P. W. 3) and two others were accompanying him. Inside the forest, all of a sudden the appellants emerged and gagging the mouth of Surekha (P. W. 3), she was physically lifted and carried away. A search was made but in vain. Subsequently it is alleged, appellant Mamu took her to the house of a relative, confined her in a room and against her will and consent committed rape. Some days after he brought her to G. Udayagiri and than to Ranpur where also he continued to commit rape on her. She was rescued from the custody of appellant Mamu on 5-2-1982. On the information (Ext. 1) lodged by P. W. 1 investigation was carried and after recovery of the victim girl, she was sent for medical examination. The Medical Officer (P. W. 6) reported that she was a minor aged between 14 and 15 years and further there were no recent signs of sexual intercourse. As this was a case of rape of a minor girl against her consent, charge-sheet was submitted against appellant Mamu for having committed offences under Ss. 366 and 376 and against other appellants under S. 366, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE appellants during trial denied their involvement in the offence. As this was a case of rape of a minor girl against her consent, charge-sheet was submitted against appellant Mamu for having committed offences under Ss. 366 and 376 and against other appellants under S. 366, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE appellants during trial denied their involvement in the offence. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge after scrutiny of the prosecution evidence held that Surekha (P. W. 3) was a minor below 15 years of age, there was no proof of rape and that the appellants had committed an offence of kidnapping punishable under S. 363, I. P. C. Therefore, while acquitting appellant Mamu for the offence under S. 376, he altered the charge of the offence from S. 366 to S. 363, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The other appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. ( 5 ) THERE is no government appeal against the order of acquittal under S. 376, I. P. C. and so this aspect of the case does not warrant consideration. The only point the Court is required to consider is whether Surekha (P. W. 3) as a minor on the date of occurrence and had been kidnapped by the appellants from the lawful guardianship. ( 6 ) SO far as the age is concerned, Surekha (P. W. 3) stated while being examined in Court, that she was aged 16 years. The occurrence had taken place much earlier. On this point there was no cross-examination. P. W. 6 the Medical Officer made ossification test and examined the physical features of the victim girl and opined that she was approximately between 14 and 15 years of age. On the point of age there was absolutely no cross-examination. Therefore, although other materials were not produced for consideration and the presence of parents of the victim girl was not secured for the purpose of examination so as to ascertain from their mouth about the age of their progeny, the evidence of Surekha (P. W. 3) and the Medical Officer (P. W. 6) cannot at all be disbelieved. Therefore, although other materials were not produced for consideration and the presence of parents of the victim girl was not secured for the purpose of examination so as to ascertain from their mouth about the age of their progeny, the evidence of Surekha (P. W. 3) and the Medical Officer (P. W. 6) cannot at all be disbelieved. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that Surekha (P. W. 3) was a minor on the date of occurrence and was aged approximately between 14 and 15 years cannot be disturbed. ( 7 ) THE next point for consideration is whether the appellants actually kidnapped the victim girl. With regard to this aspect, the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 is material. P. W. 1 belonged to a different village and so he did not know the names of the appellants although at the time of occurrence he had seen them. But the appellants belong to the same village as that of the victim girl Surekha (P. W. 3) and her elder sister Gita (P. W. 4 ). Being co-villagers they had known the names of the appellants. If the evidence of these three witnesses is read as a whole, it will appear that the appellants and they alone kidnapped Surekha (P. W. 3) on the date and at the time of the occurrence. There is no such material in the cross-examination of these witnesses so as to enable this Court to take a different view. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge to the effect that the appellants had kidnapped the minor girl Surekha (P. W. 3) is bound to be upheld. ( 8 ) THE next point for consideration is whether the minor girl Surekha (P. W. 3) was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship. In this connection, explanation appended below S. 361, I. P. C. is relevant and is quoted below :-"explanation.- The words "lawful guardian" in this Section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. "when we consider the question of lawful guardianship of the minor victim girl Surekha (P. W. 3) we must have to take into consideration some peculiar features which are apparent in the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4. "when we consider the question of lawful guardianship of the minor victim girl Surekha (P. W. 3) we must have to take into consideration some peculiar features which are apparent in the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4. According to them, the custom in their caste and society is that the marriage is not performed in the house of the bride. On the other hand, the groom comes to the house of the bride, brings her along with him to his own house and subsequently the marriage is performed. According to this prevalent caste and social custom, P.W.1 came to the house of his father-in-law and on the date of occurrence in the evening he was returning with the prospective bride along with her elder sister (P. W. 4) so that the marriage could be performed at his own house later. On the way, however, something unfortunate intervened for which the victim girl remained untraced for a considerable time. In consideration of the prevailing caste and social custom it can well be said that the natural guardian of the minor bride, in this case Surekha (P. W. 3), entrusted her guardianship and custody to her prospective husband so that he would take care of her as a husband takes care of his wife. Therefore by necessary implication, the natural guardian of Surekha (P. W. 3) her father entrusted the lawful guardianship of the minor bride to P. W. 1 and when the appellants kidnapped her, they did so at their peril from the lawful guardianship of P. W. 1. Even if this aspect of the case is not accepted yet, Surekha (P. W. 3) being the minor bride still remained under the lawful guardianship of her father and according to her own evidence, she was forcibly taken away by the appellants which means it was against the consent of her lawful guardian. Therefore, in either view of the matter, the appellants kidnapped Surekha (P. W. 3) from her lawful guardianship within the meaning of explanation appended to S. 361, I. P. C. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge in this respect also is unquestionable. ( 9 ) THE last point for consideration is the quantum of sentence. It is stated at the Bar that all the appellants, except appellant Barik Naik in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1984 have served out their sentences. ( 9 ) THE last point for consideration is the quantum of sentence. It is stated at the Bar that all the appellants, except appellant Barik Naik in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1984 have served out their sentences. Only appellant Barik Naik applied and got bail in this Court without serving the substantive portion of the sentence. It is, therefore, stated at the Bar that in a case of this nature the question of sentence should be viewed with leniency. Since the other appellants have served out their sentence nothing can be done for them even if the sentence is now reduced. But so far as Barik Naik is concerned, it will be sufficient if he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. This sentence in my view, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, will serve the ends of justice. In order to avoid discrimination the other appellants are also similarly sentenced. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeals are devoid of merit and are dismissed subject to modification of sentence. Instead of the sentences imposed, the appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Appeals dismissed.