Judgment MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated June 06, 1986 by which he has convicted the accused appellants under Section 366, I. P. C. and has sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -. The accused-appellant No. 1 Bhakhar Ram has also been convicted under Section 452, I. P. C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter is to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. ( 2 ) DURING the night intervening 22nd and 23rd February, 1979, the accused-appellants alongwith one Shiva came to the Dhanit of the complainant PW-2 and forcibly took away his minor daughter Samda PW -12. He lodged written report Ex. P/3 in the Police Station, Jhanwar (Jodhpur) on 6. 45 A. M. on February 23, 1979. F. I. R. Ex.-P/15 was drawn and case was registered under Section 363, 366, 342 and 456, I. P. C. and the investigation commenced. Samda was recovered from the Dhanit of the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram on 23rd February 1979. Ornaments which Samda was wearing at the time of the occurrence were also recovered therefrom. After completing the investigation, a challan was filed against the accused-appellants under Sections 452 and 366, I. P. C. After commitment, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 366 and 452, I. P. C. against all the three accused-appellants besides framing charge against the accused Bhakhar Ram under Section 379, I. P. C. The prosecution examined Salag Ram PW-2, his wife Roopali PW-8, daughter Samda PW -12 and son-in-law Khimaram PW-13 as eyewitnesses and several other witnesses and produced and proved 18 documents. ( 3 ) THE accused-appellants admit in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that the Junior girl Samda was recovered from the Dhanit of accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram. They have also stated that the complainant Salagram married his daughter Samda with the accused B hakhar Ram on 22nd February, 1979 and happily bid farewell in the evening. ( 3 ) THE accused-appellants admit in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that the Junior girl Samda was recovered from the Dhanit of accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram. They have also stated that the complainant Salagram married his daughter Samda with the accused B hakhar Ram on 22nd February, 1979 and happily bid farewell in the evening. The remaining prosecution story has been denied by all of them They did not produce any evidence in their defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned A. P. P. , the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur convicted and sentenced the accused -appellants as said above. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a great variance in between the report Ex.-P/3 (F. I. R. Ex.-P/15) and the prosecution evidence, in the report Ex.-P/3 it is clearly admitted by the complainant Salagram PW-2 that talks of marriage in between the accused Bhakhar Ram and the girl Samda took place and this fact has totally been denied by him in his statement on oath. He further contends that the story put forward by the prosecution appears to be highly improbable, there is no independent corroboration despite the fact that there were several houses adjacent to the house of the complainant Salagram and the statements of the prosecution witnesses are replete with material contradictions and inconsistencies. He lastly contends that the alleged occurrence took place in February 1979, more than 11 years have passed since then, it is not the prosecution case that any of the accused-appellants has relapsed and committed another crime and they should be given the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act. He has disclosed that the accused-appellants Deda Ram has died. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor duly supports the judgment under challenge. He contends that within six hours of the occurrence, report Ex. P 13 was lodged in the Police Station, F. I. R. Ex.-P/15 was drawn and it was forthwith despatched to the concerned Magistrate. He further contends that it is admitted by the accused-appellants that the minor girl Samda was recovered from the Dhani of the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram, there was no question of any marriage of Samda with him, nothing damaging has been elicited out in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and they have fully corroborated the prosecution story. He further contends that it is admitted by the accused-appellants that the minor girl Samda was recovered from the Dhani of the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram, there was no question of any marriage of Samda with him, nothing damaging has been elicited out in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and they have fully corroborated the prosecution story. He lastly contends that offence under Section 366 I. P. C. is punishable with rigorous imprisonment upto ten years and the learned Addi. Sessions Judge has already been liberal in sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for two years only. ( 6 ) IT is well-proved from the statement of the Investigating Officer Ramesh Chandra PW14 that the report Ex.-P13 was lodged by the complainant Salagram at 8. 45 A. M. on February 23, 1979 clearly stating that the accused-appellants came to his house in the night and forcibly took away his minor daughter Samda. It is further well-proved from his Statement and also from the statements of the attesting witnesses Punaram PW-1 and Binjaram PW-4 that Samda was recovered from the house of accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram. This fact is admitted by all the three accused-appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) THE prosecution case is that Samda was forcibly taken away by the accused-appellants in the night intervening 22nd and 23rd February 1979 and the defence of the accused-appellants is that Samda was happily married by the complainant Salagram on February 22,1979 and the same evening the party was given farewell and Samda was sent witil the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram. The complainant Salag Ram PW-2 has categoricaly slated on oath that the accused- appellants came to his Dhani in a tractor in the night they tied him and his wife and forcibly look away his minor daughter Samda. Similarly, his wife Roopali PW-8 has deposed so. Samda PW 12 has categorically stated on oath that she was sleeping alongwith her mother and sister inside the Dhani and her father was sleeping outside the Dhani, at about 12 P. M. in the night the accused-appellants came inside the Dhanit alongwith Shivia, they tied her mother and father, her mouth was also gagged and when Khima Ram PW-13 come to rescue her Shivia threatened him with dire consequences. She has also deposed that the accused persons put her in the tractor and took her forcibly to the village Doli and she was kept in the house of the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram. She has further stated that forcibly mehandi was put on her hands and her old clothes were got changed with the new ones as they wanted to marry her with the accused Bhakhar Ram. She further says that the police came to next morning and took away her therefrom. In the cross- examination, she disclosed that the accused-appellant Dedaram brought a lantern with him when the accused-appellants Dedaram came to thet Dhani of her father and she raised hue and cry on the way when she was being carried away to the village Doli. During those days. Khima Ram PW. 13 was living with the complainant Salagram as Samda was engaged with him. He also Witness the occurrence. He has duly supported the prosecution case. Nothing damaging could be clicited out in the cross-examination of these witnesses. It is well-proved from their statements that Samta was forcibly taken away from the house of her father Salagram during that night in onder to marry her with the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram. ( 8 ) THE defence of the accused-appellants that Salagram duly married Samda with the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram is an after-thought and is false. The bail application of the accused appellants dated February 26, 1979 is completely silent on this point. No such suggestion has been put in the cross-examination of Salgram PW 2 Roopali P. W.-8 and Khima Ram PW-13. Had there been any marriage in the evening of 22nd February, 1979 in the house of the complainant some relations would have been present ill the Dhani at the time of the occurrence and admittedly none was present. The accused-appellant would also have made some arrangements for it. In that case, Samda would not have forcibly been asked to change her old clothes with the new ones and mehandi would not have been put on her hands in the Dhani of the accused appellant Bhakhar Ram after she was brought there. No evidence in defence has been produced by them. Had the marriage in between Samla and the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram actually taken place, the girls father Salag Ram would not have lodged the report Ex,-P/3 with the police the very next morning. No evidence in defence has been produced by them. Had the marriage in between Samla and the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram actually taken place, the girls father Salag Ram would not have lodged the report Ex,-P/3 with the police the very next morning. ( 9 ) IT is correct that there are some inconsistencies and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. They are minor and are not material points. It is common experience that discrepancies do occur even in the statement perfectly honest witnesses which are really due to difference in individual faculties in with regard to observation, recollection and recital of details; and unless there is any good ground to think that they are due to deliberate attempt to suppress or depart from truth, it is unfair to discard the direct testimony of witnesses merely on account of such discrepancies when there is general agreement as to material circumstances. ( 10 ) IT is well-proved from the statement of Medical Jurist Dr. Kothari PW-3 that Samda was 13 years of age at the time of the occurrence. The statements of the accused-appellants were recorded on 27. 5. 1980 and in these statements they have deposed that Hindi Matter It means that on the date of the occurrence she was definitely a minor. As already held above, she was forcibly taken away from the custody of her parents by the accused-appellants. If in such cases, benefit under the Probation of Offenders. Act or under Section 360, Cr. P. C. is given it will only bring disrepute to law itself. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-appellants are not entitled to any benefit either under the Probation of Offendrs Act or under Section 360, Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the accused-appellant Bhakhar Ram under Sections 366 and 452, I. P. C. and of the accused-appellant Hariya under Section 366 I. P. C. is maintained. Their sentences are also maintained. The accused-appellant Deda Ram is reported to have died. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 428, Cr. P. C. , the trial Court will see that the accused-appellants undergo the sentences of rigorous imprisonment awarded to them and pay the imposed fine. Appeal dismissed.