JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order whereby the learned Sessions judge, Tonk convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following manner: 1. Ram Swarup u/s. 368 IPC Three years R.I. and Rs. 2,000/-fine u /s. 373 IPC Five years R.I. and Rs. 2,000/- fine 2. Pooriya u/s. 368 IPC Three year R.I. and Rs. 2,000/- fine u/s. 372 IPC Five years R.I. and Rs. 2,000/- fine 3. Smt. Kanta u/s. 366A IPC Three years R.I. and Rs. 2,000/- fine u/s. 368 IPC Three years R.I. and Rs. 2,000/- fine 4. Smt. Munni u/s 368 IPC Three years R.I. and Rs. 2,000 /- fine 5. Smt. Bano 6. Smt. Santara 7. Ram Baboo(DECEASED) 8. Vijay Shankar 2. Under Police Station Diggi, Distt. Tank, at a distance of about three kilometres, there situates village Bhipur. Outside the village Abadi the appellants, NUTs by caste, have their `Deras'. On 22.4.1982 at about 5.00 p.m. PW 9 Nawal Kishore, Head Constable at Police Station Diggi received a secret information that the appellants, Ram Swaroop and Vijay Shankar, had procured two minor girls aged about 11, 12 years, PW 5 Roopa and PW 6 Kiran, and the appellants had wrongfully confined them and had been forcing them to illicit intercourse with other persons for the last two months. The Head Constable reduced this information in the General Diary at S.No. 567 and left for Bhipur at 5.30 PM alongwith PW 3 Vimal Chand and three other constables (Ex. P/12). From village Bhipur he took with him PW 2 Baloo and one Ram Lal and reached the 'Derads' of the appellants. At the west-faced double storeyed Pucca house of Ram Swaroop appellant PW 6 Kiran alias Manjoo was found. The male appellants were not there at that time but the lady appellants were there. Nawal Kishore Head Constable recovered Km. Kiran and interrogated her. On interrogation Km. Kiran unfolded the story like this: She was about 13 years aged daughter of PW 7 Chandra Shekhar RIO Siwan (Bihar). Chandra Shekhar was an employee of some Seth at Siwan. About one year back the grand father of the girl had beaten her whereupon she left the house and reached Gorakhpur (U.P.), where her elder sister, Karuna, was living, by rail. Chandra Shekhar was an employee of some Seth at Siwan. About one year back the grand father of the girl had beaten her whereupon she left the house and reached Gorakhpur (U.P.), where her elder sister, Karuna, was living, by rail. When she was going to the house of her sister a man met her and asked her as to where she wanted to go. On Kiran's telling him that she wanted to go to the house of her sister, the said man assured her that he would take her to the house of her sister. Kiran accompanied him but he took her to the house of Sint. Kanta appellant at Lalsot. The man who had brought Kiran to Kanta's house went away on the following day. Kiran lived with Smt. Kanta appellant for about 20 day. Then Smt. Kanta appellant took Kiran to the house of Smt. Bina appellant at Jodhpur. Bina changed her name to Manjoo. She lived with Bina for about 20 days. Then Smt. Kanta took her to Kotkhawda at the house of Puriya appellant. She remained there for about ten days. Pooriya then sold her to Ramswaroop for certain amount. Ram Swaroop appellant brought her to Bhipur. She was kept there for about 15 days. The appellants illegally used to keep a vigil on her there. Then Ram Swaroop, Ram Baboo, Munni, Bina appellants took her to village Negariya and brought her back, after some days, to Bhipur. At Bhipur she was forced to illicit intercourse with other persons. She further stated that the appellant had confined another minor girl, PW 5 Roopa and that she had been sent to Jodhpur with Abha Natni only two days before. 3. PW 9 Nawal Kishore reduced the statement of Km. Kiran to writing (Ex. P/13), returned to the Police Station alongwith the recovered girl (Ex. P/14) and registered FIR No. 49/82 on the basis of the statement of Kiran. The investigation of the case was taken over by PW 10 Radhey Shyam Pareekh, Station House Officer on his return to the Police Station. Kiran was got examined by PW 1 Dr. S.S. Sarkar, Medical Jurist at Sa 'adat Hospital' Tonk on 23.4.1982 for determination of her age and subjection to illicit intercourse. Dr. Sarkar opined that she was between 14 and 16 and that she had been subjected to intercourse. She was then sent to Nari Niketan. Kiran was got examined by PW 1 Dr. S.S. Sarkar, Medical Jurist at Sa 'adat Hospital' Tonk on 23.4.1982 for determination of her age and subjection to illicit intercourse. Dr. Sarkar opined that she was between 14 and 16 and that she had been subjected to intercourse. She was then sent to Nari Niketan. 4. In the course of investigation PW 10 Radhe Shyam Parekh SHO recovered PW 5 Roopa, aged about 12 years, from the house of Ramswaroop appellant, on 4.5.1982. He arrested Ramswaroop and Vijay Shankar appellants on 30.4.1982, Smt. Munni, Smt. Bina, Smt. Bano, Smt. Asha, Smt. Santra and Ram Baboo appellants on 5.5.1982 and Smt. Kanta and Puriya appellants on 8.6.1982. A report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against the present appellants and Smt. Asha and Smt. Bina. The learned Sessions Judge tried all the ten accused for the above-mentioned offences but while he found the offences proved against the present appellants, in the manner stated above, no charge was found proved as against Smt. Asha and Smt. Bina. Both were, therefore, acquitted. During the pendency of the appeal Ram Baboo appellant was reported to have died. His near relatives did not apply for leave to continue his appeal. His appeal, therefore, abated under section 394 Cr.P.C. 5. The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellants by their learned counsel, Sri Biri Singh, Advocate, was that there was no reliable and satisfactory evidence on the record of the lower court to hold the appellants or any of them guilty of the offence or offences they have been convicted of and sentenced for by the learned Sessions Judge. It was submitted that Km. Kiran had left the house of her father of her own and since she was quite major at that time no offence of kidnapping or abduction, committed against her by any body, was proved on the record. The learned counsel further submitted that the person who had allegedly induced the girl to accompany him at Gorakhpur (U.P.) was not traced out and there was no convincing evidence on the point that Kiran was ever taken to Smt. Kanta, Bano, Ram Swaroop, Puriya or Ram Baboo and was wrongfully confined by them and induced to illicit intercourse with other persons. It was submitted that the sole testimony of a girl of her age who had left the house of her father of her own was not of that worth and value upon which the conviction of the appellant may be based. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the testimony of Kiran particularly and of other witnesses generally should be appreciated in the totality of the circumstances of the case, including the economic, social, educational and cultural standards of the witnesses and the accused involved and when that is done in this case truth would stare in the face and no interference with the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge would be legally justified. 6. Cases of sexual assaults on girls and women in general and of procurement of minor girls for purposes of prostitution in particular whenever they come to the notice' of courts, should arrest the attention of the persons concerned and should be approached with desirable sensitivity and sensibility. In majority of the cases the victim of such crimes are either helpless, frightened and threatened grown up girls and women or innocent minor girls. Many a cases even go unreported and unpunished due to the cultural values prevailing in our society which view the victims of such crimes not as injured persons but as objects of hatred and dis-respect. Therefore, untill and unless such cases are noticed to be surrounded with ill will, enmity or malice towards the alleged offenders they should not lightly be rejected on supposed inconsistencies, in-effective contradictions and formal technicalities in the evidence brought on the record of a case. If the theory put forth before the court in a given case accords with normal human conduct and fits in the behavioural pattern of the persons involved, it should be believed and the offender punished. It is therefor necessary that the final verdict in such cases be recorded after taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances attending upon the commission of such crimes in the given cases. Facts of each case differ from those in the other and, therefore, the standard of appreciation of evidence applicable to the facts of a particular case should not be applied to those in the other cases without considering the socio-economic educational and cultural back,ground and the way of life of the persons involved are given to in a particular case. Facts of each case differ from those in the other and, therefore, the standard of appreciation of evidence applicable to the facts of a particular case should not be applied to those in the other cases without considering the socio-economic educational and cultural back,ground and the way of life of the persons involved are given to in a particular case. It is to be remembered that more often than not witnesses may and do tell a lie but the circumstances never. 7. In the instant case it is the undisputed and well established position that PW 6 Km. Kiran is a teen aged girl not related in any way to the appellants. She is a resident of Siwan in Bihar. The appellants are the residents_ of a village in Rajasthan. The lady appellants have stated that they are singers and dancers by profession. Ramswaroop appellant has no doubt stated that he earns his livelihood from agriculture and owns agricultural land at Bhipur. Oral (DW /1 Ratan Lal, DW/2 Gog Singh, DW/3 Ram Swaroop) and documentary evidence has also been produced in support of such assertion. But at the same time it can be hardly disputed in this case that Km. Kiran was recovered from the house of Ram Swaroop appellant in the early nights of 22.4.1982. The question which arises for serious consideration is as to how Kiran reached there and the appellants were allowing her to live with them ? Let us examine. 8. PW 9 Nawal Kishore Head constable has stated that on receipt of the information to the effect that the appellants had procured two minor girls and were confining them for the purposes of prostitution he had left for the residence of Ram Swaroop appellant and had recovered Km. Kiran from there. This statement of this witness is corroborate by PW 3 Vimal Kumar constable and PW 2 Baloo, a resident of village Bhipur. The testimony of Nawal Kishore in that behalf gets ample support from the departure report Ex. P/12 and the arrival report Ex. /14, duly recorded by the Head Constable at the relevant times. The three witnesses are not stated to be inimical with the appellants in any way. Their statements are further supported by the kidnapped girl, PW 6 Kiran. The testimony of Nawal Kishore in that behalf gets ample support from the departure report Ex. P/12 and the arrival report Ex. /14, duly recorded by the Head Constable at the relevant times. The three witnesses are not stated to be inimical with the appellants in any way. Their statements are further supported by the kidnapped girl, PW 6 Kiran. All of them have stated that it was the double storeyed house, owned and possessed by Ram Swaroop appellant, wherefrom Kiran was recovered by the policemen. This fact is not denied or disputed by the appellants and /or the defence witnesses. It, therefore, stands proved beyond any doubt that on 22.4.1982 at about 7.30 PW 6 Kiran was recovered from the house of Ramswaroop appellant at village Bhipur under Police Station Diggi. Distt. Tonk in Rajasthan, that she was the resident of a distant place Siwan in Bihar and was not in any way related to the appellants. The appellants have offered no explanation at all to keep Kiran in their house at Bhipur. 9. Now the pertinent question that arises for consideration is whether PW 6 Kiran was a kidnapped girl and the appellants knew that fact. In order to prove this material fact prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW 7 Chandra Shekhar, the father of the girl, PW 8 Daya Prasad, the husband of the elder sister of Kiran, PW 6 Kiran herself and PW 1 Dr. S.S. Sarkar, the Medical Jurist at Sa'adat Hospital, Tonk at the time of the recovers of the girl on 22.4.1982. PW 7 Chandra Shekhar has stated that Kiran was the third of his five daughters. In all he has seven sons and daughters. First two daughters. Kanchan and Kruna, were married, the third Arun Kumar, Aldest son was aged 16 years, then Kiran (PW 6) was aged 14 years, then Krishna was aged 10 years, then Anoop Kumar was aged 7 years and the last, Kumkum was aged five years. This witness is the father of PW 6 Kiran and must be having direct knowledge of the age of his daughter. The way he told the ages of all his children affords authenticity and reliability to the version given by him in respect to the age of Kiran. 10. PW 8 Daya Ram is the husband of Smt. Kanchan, the eldest daughter of PW 7 Chandra Shekhar. The way he told the ages of all his children affords authenticity and reliability to the version given by him in respect to the age of Kiran. 10. PW 8 Daya Ram is the husband of Smt. Kanchan, the eldest daughter of PW 7 Chandra Shekhar. This witness, in the first sentence of his cross-examination, stated that Kiran was aged 19-20 years. However, on further cross-examination he told that he himself was aged 25 years and his wife Kanchan was aged 21 years. The statement of the witness was recorded on 5.5.1983 and Kiran is stated to have left the house of her father on 21.5.1980. Calculating the age of Kiran on the basis of age of Kanchan, as stated by the witness, Kiran's age comes to about 14 or so at the time of her leaving the house of her father. The evidence of this witness in respect to the age of Kiran cannot be considered as of much significance for the reason that he would not be having the direct knowledge of the birth of the girl. In the very beginning of the cross-examination he stated the age of Kiran at 19-20 but when more questions regarding his own age and the age of his wife were put to him he could not stick to his earlier position. I would, therefore, exclude his testimony from consideration of the estimation of the age of Kiran. 11. PW 6 Kiran, the kidnapped girl, has told her age at 14. She cannot have direct knowledge of her birth and her version regarding her age would necessarily be based on the knowledge acquired from-her parents and other relatives and on the estimation of her age by herself made on the basis of the development of her physique, height, weight etc. Incidentally the age told by her accords with the facts found by Dr. Sarkar on the examination of the relevant parts and organs of her body and, therefore, to some extent her own version may be taken into consideration. 12. PW 1 Dr. S.S. Sarkar, on clinical and X-Ray examinations of Kiran on 23.4.1983, noted that the girl was 5 feet high, 34 kg. of weight 14 teeth in each jaws and growing auxiliary hair. Pubic hair had appeared and her breasts were in developing process. 12. PW 1 Dr. S.S. Sarkar, on clinical and X-Ray examinations of Kiran on 23.4.1983, noted that the girl was 5 feet high, 34 kg. of weight 14 teeth in each jaws and growing auxiliary hair. Pubic hair had appeared and her breasts were in developing process. Iliac crest had not fused, epiphysis in radins only had just started and the diaphysis of the lower end of radius and ulna had not united with the epiphysis, upper end of ulna and upper end of radins had not fused. On these facts Dr. Sarkar opined that Kiran was aged between 14-16 years at the time of her examination by him. She had allegedly given the history of the commencement of mensurated life one and a half year back. 13. The testimony of Dr. Sarkar is the testimony of an expert witness. The opinion evidence of an expert is admissible in evidence on the subject the witness claims himself to be having special knowledge. It is his special knowledge of particular subject that makes his evidence material in the consideration of that fact by the court witch is in issue before it. His testimony simply helps the court in appreciating other evidence relevant to the issue and is not binding on the court. Therefore, in order to be helpful to the court in deciding an issue of fact in a case on which the expert opinion is relevant it is necessary that the facts on which the expert has made his opinion must be placed before the court. The facts or scientific data which the expert relies upon for making his opinion, therefore, make the direct evidence in a case and may be appreciated as such. Therefore, in order to make the opinion of the expert under section 45 reliable and helpful to the court, the existence of the facts found by the expert on his direct observation should also be proved as they are relevant under section 51 of the Indian Evidence Act and make the opinion of the expert worth consideration by the court. In the instant case Dr. Sarkar has stated all the relevant facts found on clinical and X-ray examination of the physical development of Kiran and thus the opinion rendered by Dr. Sarkar in the present case in quite satisfactory and reliable. In the instant case Dr. Sarkar has stated all the relevant facts found on clinical and X-ray examination of the physical development of Kiran and thus the opinion rendered by Dr. Sarkar in the present case in quite satisfactory and reliable. Incidentally, the opinion given by him regarding the age of Kiran corroborates the direct evidence of PW 7 Chandra Shekhar. It is thus satisfactorily proved on record that at the time Kiran left the house of her father she was aged about 12-13 years and when she was recovered from the house of the appellant she was aged about 15-16 years. In no case she was above 18 years at the time of her recovery from the house of the appellants in the year 1982. 14. In the same continuation it may be considered whether Kiran was subjected to sexual intercourse. On this aspect of the case the medical evidence on the point led by Dr. Sarkar, apart from that of Kiran herself, is that though her breasts were not yet well developed but the conture of the breasts were slightly pendulous. Her libia majora were well developed and her hymen was completely ruptured. Looking to her age and keeping in mind the condition of her organs, involved in sex act, it may safely be concluded that the girl had been repeatedly subjected to sexual intercourse. 15. Her libia majora were well developed and her hymen was completely ruptured. Looking to her age and keeping in mind the condition of her organs, involved in sex act, it may safely be concluded that the girl had been repeatedly subjected to sexual intercourse. 15. Now, the main question to be considered in the case is whether Kiran may be said to be a 'kidnapped' girl in the facts and circumstances of the case for the purposes of offences punishable under sections 366A and 368 IPC.Section 361 IPC defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship in the following words:- "Whenever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female,.or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship." Explanation - The words "lawful guardian" in this section includes any person lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of such minor or other person.Exception - This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose. 16. What needs to be taken note of in the definition of the offence of "kidnapping", as defined in Section 361 IPC, is that the Legislature in its wisdom, has used the words "takes or entices" and "keeping in its language. The word "take" means to cause to go, to escort or to get into possession. It does not involve the element of any 'inducement' or allurement', on the part of the taker, in its meanings. The word "entices" on the other hand, carries within its meaning the idea of 'inducement' or 'allurement' on the part of the person who entices a minor by creating or existing a hope or desire in the minor whereas the former word "takes" does not suggest any positive act initially emanating from the taker, the latter word "Entices" carries with it a positive act of promise, offer or inducement emanating from the alleged kidnapper of the minor. Therefore, if a minor leaves the house of his or her parents of her own completely un-influenced by any promise offer or inducement emanating from the alleged kidnapper, no offence is committed under section 361 IPC. 17. In the case of Thakor Lal D Vadgama, 1973 SCC (Cri) 835 the Supreme Court explained the distinction of the two words "takes" and "entices" used in the language of Section 361 IPC in the following words "The two words "takes" and "entices", as used in Section 361 are, in our openion, intended to be read together so that each takes to some extent its colour and content from the other. The statutory language suggests that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in Section 361. But if the guilty party has laid a foundation by inducement, allurement or threat, etc. at and if this can be considered to have influenced the minor or weighed with her in leaving her guardian's custody or keeping and going to the guilty party, then prima facie it would be difficult for him to plead innocence on the ground that the minor had voluntarily come to him. If he had at an earlier stage solicited or induced her in any manner to leave her father's protection, by conveying or indicating or encouraging suggestion that he would give her shelter, then the mere circumstance that his act was not immediate cause of her leaving her parental house or guardians custody would constitute no valid defence and would not absolve him." 18. In the same context the meaning of the word "keeping" used in the language of Section 361 may be noted. The word "keeping" as against the word "possession" conveys the sense of maintenance, protection, or control of the minor by the guardian and is compatible with independence of action and movement on the part of the minor. "Possession" is generally used in relation to or connection with inanimate objects. Therefore, the expression "out of the keeping of lawful guardian", occurring in the language of Section 361, signifies some act done by the accused leading to the going of the minor out of the keeping of his guardian i.e. an act which the minor would not have otherwise done. Therefore, the expression "out of the keeping of lawful guardian", occurring in the language of Section 361, signifies some act done by the accused leading to the going of the minor out of the keeping of his guardian i.e. an act which the minor would not have otherwise done. The act done by the accused may be regarded as the proximate cause of the going of the minor from the guardianship of his guardian. The relation between 'minority' of a minor and 'guardianship' of a lawful guardian of that minor prima facie suggests that the minor, incapable as he is to give free consent and to abondone the lawful guardianship of his guardian, cannot of his own abondone the relationship. This general principle, however, gets turned into a penal offence if another person indulges himself in the taking or enticing the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian. If on the facts of a given case it is noticed that the minor had himself or herself come out of or abondoned the guardianship of his or her lawful guardian and the accused had in no way contributed to his/her "taking" or "enticing" out of the "keeping" of the lawful guardian, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence contemplated in Section 361 IPC. It is true that the guardianship of the lawful guardian continues until the same gets terminated in law but that does not mean that the offence under section 361 is a continuing offence. The offence of kidnapping is complete as soon as the accused takes or entices the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian. The mere fact that the minor leaves the protection of her guardian does not put her out of the keeping of the guardian but since no taking or enticing of the minor out of the keeping is attributable to the accused in the act of the minor offence under section 361 IPC can not be said to have been committed in such a case. 19. In the instant case it is the undisputed position that on being beaten by her grandfather PW 6 Kiran had left the house of her lawful guardian of her own and had reached Gorakhpur through a train. 19. In the instant case it is the undisputed position that on being beaten by her grandfather PW 6 Kiran had left the house of her lawful guardian of her own and had reached Gorakhpur through a train. At Gorakhpur when she was to go to the house of her elder sister an unknown person met her and induced her to go with him. These facts themselves suggest that Kiran had abondoned the guardianship of her lawful guardian of her own and reached Gorakhpur on her own account. No body had either taken or enticed her out of the keeping of her lawful guardian Sri. Chandra Shekhar, her natural father. She was not a kidnapped girl at that point of time and, therefore, no offence punishable under section 368 IPC can be said to have been committed in her wrongful concealment or keeping in confinement at a later point of time. The appellants, convicted of and sentenced for that offence, are entitled to acquittal of that offence. 20. Now coming to the commission of the offence punishable under section 366A IPC in the present case the relevant facts, as stated by PW 6 Kiran, are that the unknown person who had taken her with him from Gorakhpur, took her to Smt. Kanta appellant and leaving her there he himself returned therefrom on the following day. She further stated that she lived there for two months and then Smt. Kanta took her to one Lata at Jodhpur where her name was changed to Manjoo from Kiran. She further stated that there at Jodhpur Lata used to carry the profession of singing and dancing and that she was also asked to learn singing and dancing which she could not. The witness also stated that at the house of Smt. Kanta there was another girl and that prostitution was being carried on at the house of Kanta and people used to visit Kant's house and pay money to Kanta and some money used to be paid to that another girl. She added that she herself was addressed to as a 'baby' by Smt. Kanta, when introduced to others. In answer to a court question the witness stated that at Kant's house she was not asked to adopt prostitution. She added that she herself was addressed to as a 'baby' by Smt. Kanta, when introduced to others. In answer to a court question the witness stated that at Kant's house she was not asked to adopt prostitution. The witness further stated that from Jodhpur Bina (co-accused since acquitted who happenned to be the mother-in-law of Ramswaroop appellant) took her to Pooriya appellant at Kotkhawada where she lived for about a month. Therefrom Ramswaroop appellant, added the witness, took her with him after paying a number of currency notes to Pooriya appellant. The witness further stated that at Ramswaroop house at Bhipura she was forced to illicit intercourse with several other persons. 21. Before proceeding to consider as to what offence can be said to be made out from the above statement of PW 6 Kiran it may be observed that on a very close study of the testimony of this witness I have felt satisfied that her testimony can be and has been rightly believed by the learned trial Judge. As stated above she was quite a minor girl of about 14 years of age when she had left the house of her parents at Siwan. The cause for leaving the house, as told by her, was that the father of Indu, her neighbour, had given two rupees to her and thereupon she and Indu, have had some fight between them. The grand-father of the girl wanted to give a beating to her and that was why that she had left the house and went to Gorakhpur by train. Howsoever, the trifle the matter and immature the act of the witness were it is evident that she did not have that much of power of understanding which might have required her to think over twice before leaving the house of her father in that way. Her mental brought up is required to be appreciated in the background that she was one of the seven children of an economically, Poor person, Chandrashekhar, who was earning his livelihood by serving a local business man privately. She is not an educated girl. She had not by then even started mens-turating. She could have, therefore, taken the childish decision of leaving her parents house when her father was away to Bombay. She is not an educated girl. She had not by then even started mens-turating. She could have, therefore, taken the childish decision of leaving her parents house when her father was away to Bombay. She has stated that she travelled without any ticket from Siwan to Gorakhpur and at the railway station she engaged a Riksha for Re. 1 //- to take her to her sister's house. It was at that point of time that the fellow who took her to Smt. Kanta appellant later on, met her and induced her to go with him. He ultimately took her to Smt. Kanta appellant. At the cost of repetition it may again be stated that the witness appears to be stating the entire story of her leaving the house of her father of her own and there to have fallen in the hands of other persons, including the present appellants, in a natural way. There seems to be no abnormal behaviour, on her part, looking to her age at the relevant time and to the atmosphere she had been put into by the circumstances. What she has stated accords with normal human conduct and the things could have and in fact are proved to have taken place in that way. Thus the witness, whom the learned Judge has had the opportunity to see and take note of her demeanour in the witness box and thereafter believed her, is found to be a truthful and reliable witness. Her recovery after about two years from the possession or control or custody of the persons whom she named as keeping her and forcing her to illicit intercourse with others and the condition of her private parts support and corroborate the version given by her. In agreement with the learned trial Judge, therefore, I hold that the theory advanced by the prosecution in this case fits in the facts and circumstances of the case and stands proved by cogent and reliable evidence. In agreement with the learned trial Judge, therefore, I hold that the theory advanced by the prosecution in this case fits in the facts and circumstances of the case and stands proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The facts proved on record, to my mind, fully establish the commission of offences punishable under sections 366A by Smt. Kanta appellant, 372 by Pooriya appellant and under sections 373 by Ramswaroop, which run as under "Section 366-A - Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine." Section 372. Selling minor for purposes of prostitution. Whoever sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of any person under the age of eighteen years with intent that such person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful or immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation I - When a female under the age of eighteen years is sold, let for hire, or otherwise disposed of to a prostitute or to any person who keeps or manages a brothel, the person so disposing of such female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have disposed of her with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution. Explanation II-xxxx (Not relevant for our purpose) Section 373 - Buying minor for purpose of prostitution etc. Explanation II-xxxx (Not relevant for our purpose) Section 373 - Buying minor for purpose of prostitution etc. Whoever buys, hires or otherwise obtains the possession of any person under the age of eighteen years with intent that such person shall at any age be employed the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or known it to be likely that such person will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with any imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation I - Any prostitute or any person keeping or managing a brothel, who buys, hires or otherwise obtain the possession of a female under the age of eighteen years shall, untill the contrary is proved, be presumed to have obtained possession of such female with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution. Explanation II - 'Illicit intercourse' has the same meaning as in Section 372.' 22. It may be noted that in the language of Section 366-A the word used is though 'induces' which indicates a close resemblance of this section to Section 362 (abduction) and some of the ingredients of the two offences are apparently common yet there is a marked distinction in between the two provisions. Whereas "kidnapping" or "abduction" of the person concerned is necessary to make the offence punishable under sections 366 and 368 that is not so to constitute the offence contemplated by Section 366-A. Any reason given by the accused to move the girl from one place to the other is sufficient for the purposes of 'inducement' used in the language of Section 366-A. If the plan of the accused to cause the movement of the girl from one place to another is successful the inducement for the purposes of Section 366-A is complete. Moreover, the offence under this section like that under section 362 is also a continuing offence. Moreover, the offence under this section like that under section 362 is also a continuing offence. Smt. Kanta's act of taking Kiran to Lata co-accused, since acquitted, and leaving her there when Lata was carrying on the profession of dancing and singing and the subsequent happening of Bina's taking Kanta to Pooriya appellant and Pooriya appellant selling her to Ramswaroop and Ramswaroop's forcing her to illicit intercourse with other persons clearly establish the offence under section 366-A as against Smt. Kanta appellant, under section 372 as against Pooriya appellant and under section 373 as against Ram Swaroop appellant. In my opinion, therefore the learned trial Judge has rightly found the above named three appellants guilty of the offences specified against their respective names. 23. Though PW 5 Roopa was also examined as a victim of offences u /ss. 366, 366-A, 368, 372 & 373 IPC but she claimed herself to be the daughter of Beena appellant. She did not allege that she had been subjected to illicit intercourse with other persons. Though it is doubtful whether she really is the daughter of Bina yet the above offences are not found proved as having been committed against her. 24. For sentence I find that no doubt the offence had been committed in the year 1980-82 and a long time has since roiled by yet it cannot be lost sight of that Sections 366-A and 366-B were brought on the statute book by the IPC (Amendment) Act, 1923 to give effect to certain Articles of International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children to punish the export and import of girls for prostitution. The aim of Section 366-A is to prevent immorality and when read in wider perspective its provisions are noted to have been framed more with the desire of safeguarding the public interest of morality than the chastity of one particular girl. Delay in disposal of the appeal can, therefore, not be allowed to consume the gravity of the offence. 25. However, it is noted that Smt. Kanta appellant was aged 35 years when she was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. in the year 1983. She is now over fifty years of age. She has been in jail for some time during the trial and possibly thereafter. 25. However, it is noted that Smt. Kanta appellant was aged 35 years when she was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. in the year 1983. She is now over fifty years of age. She has been in jail for some time during the trial and possibly thereafter. It would be rather harsh for her to send her to jail again after the lapse of so much of time. In her case, therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is required to be reduced to the period of sentence already under gone by her in this case. No such treatment is, however, required to be given to the male appellants. 26. In the result, conviction and sentence of all the appellant for offence under section 368 IPC is set aside and they are acquitted of the same. Consequently Smt. Munni, Smt. Bano, Smt. Santra and Vijay Shankar appellants are acquitted fully.Conviction of Ramswaroop appellant for offence under section 373, of Pooriya appellant for offence under section 372 and of Smt. Kanta appellant for offence under section 366A 1PC is maintained and their appeals against convictions for those offences dismissed. While the sentences of imprisonment and fine awarded to Pooriya and Ramswaroop appellants for the offences found proved against them and they have been convicted of, are maintained, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to Smt. Kanta appellant for offence under section 366A IPC is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by her. But the sentence of fine awarded to her for that offence is maintained and she is given three months time to deposit the amount of fine, if not realised from her so far.Appeal partly allowed. *******