JUDGMENT Complainant Somari Bai (P W1) has stated in her deposition that last year at the time of cutting of Dhan she had gone to Ichchhapur to the house of Uma to attend the marriage along-with Uma, Shivbati, Shamwati and Khunto and that the marriage was to take place on Sunday. Further, according to version of Somari Bai, when she was returning back on Monday night to her village along-with the aforesaid persons and when they reached Keragudapara she was told by Kuso that her sister (who was her Kaki) was having pain in the stomach and she should go to see her but she told her she will go in the morning to see her and when the complainant started going to her house at that time Buddhu, Hoonga and Mangalu caught her hand and there was another person along-with them and all the four persons lifted her forcibily took her away. The persons companions of the complainant had tried to intervene but they failed to get her released from the accused persons. Somari Bai has further stated that these persons (accused persons) had taken her to the house of Hoonga and had locked her in the room and inside the room Hoonga had made her naked and he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, but, on the same night her mother came and took her to her house. According to Somari Bai (PW 1) the accused persons wanted to marry her to Hoonga and so they had taken her away against her will. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution it appears that complainant's mother Paro Bai (PW 3) was informed about the incident in the night only by Uma (PW 4) and immediately thereafter Paro Bai had gone to bring back her daughter Somari Bai. The version of Somari Bai (PW 1) about the incident stands corroborated by the versions of Siboram (PW 2) and Vma (PW 4) who were also returning along-with Somari Bai after attending the marriage at Ichchhapur and in whose presence the accused persons had abducted Somari Bai and had taken her away. It is also clear from the versions of Siboram and Uma that they had tried to get Somari Bai released from the accused persons but they failed and that the accused had taken away Somari Bai towards jungle. It is also clear from the versions of Siboram and Uma that they had tried to get Somari Bai released from the accused persons but they failed and that the accused had taken away Somari Bai towards jungle. From the version of Siboram (PW 2) it is clear that all the accused persons had said that they had fed Somari Bai and so they were taking her away to get her married to accused Hoonga. Somwati (PW 5) is also an eye witness to the incident but she has not fully supported the prosecution version regarding the incident. This witness Somwati (PW 5) was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution and she had then admitted that it was true that accused Hoonga, Mangalu and Buddhu had forcibly caught Somari Bai and had started taken her away and due to fright she had gone home. Thus, the fact that the complainant Somari Bai was abducted and taken away by the accused persons while she was returning along-with her companions from village Ichchhapur after attending the marriage stands fully proved from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. There are discrepancies in the versions of Somari Bai (PW 1) because in her cross- examination she stated that in the night her mother had taken her away from the way to the house of accused Hoonga and this belies her earlier version that she had been locked in the room in the house of Hoonga and there she had been made naked and that accused Hoonga had tried to commit intercourse with her. From the version of complainant Somari Bai (PW 1) it appears that in their caste there is a custom according to which the boy runs away with the girl in order to marry her and then the girl's parents go to visit the boy's house to talk over about the marriage. However, Paro Bai (PW 3) who is mother of the complainant, she has denied that there is any such custom in her caste. Sub-Inspector G.L. Thakur (PW 6) has also denied in his cross-examination that there is any such custom among the Adiwasies about the boy running with the girl. However, Paro Bai (PW 3) who is mother of the complainant, she has denied that there is any such custom in her caste. Sub-Inspector G.L. Thakur (PW 6) has also denied in his cross-examination that there is any such custom among the Adiwasies about the boy running with the girl. Admittedly, there are some discrepancies in the versions of the prosecution witnesses as also in version of complainant Somari Bai herself but the version regarding the incident appears to be true and so the trial Court has rightly held the accused appellants guilty of the offence u/s 366 I.P.C. The conviction of the appellants u/s 366 I.P.C. is maintained. However, as regards the sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances which have come in the prosecution evidence, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of R.I. for 4 years u/s 366 I.P.C. to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants.