Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1984 in which the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge found the petitioner Ahmad Mian guilty under Sec. 366/366A and also under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for six years each. He further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Similarly the other petitioner, Abdul Mian who is father of Ahmad Mian was simply found guilty under Sec. 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo R I. for six years and also he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default to R.I. for one year. 2. Against this order of conviction by the court below, both the petitioners preferred Crl. Appeal No. 112 of 1988 and the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1988 dated 29-3-1990 also dismissed the appeal and order of conviction and sentence as awarded against the petitioners was confirmed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved and disatisfied with the aforesaid order of conviction, both the petitioners have preferred this revision. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Sarfuddin Mian had alleged that on 29-10-1982 he got only daughter named Bano alias Saira Bano alias Husna Bano aged about 15 years and he had no other issue but on 27-9-1982 his daughter was kidnapped by the petitioner Ahmad and so he had gone to Satbarwa in the house of Ahmad for inquiry but Ahmad and his father Abdul Mian was not present. It has also been alleged that Ahmad while kidnapping or abducting her daughter took away clothes, ornaments, cash amounting to Rs., 10,000.00 . 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, this case was instituted as against both the petitioners and the police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet as against both the petitioners. In the trial Court, both the petitioners claimed that they are innocent and it is their defence that actually, there was Nikah between Sairabanu alias Husna Banu, daughter of the informant and Ahmad Mian, petitioner No.1 before a Moulvi in village Nawada an 30-9-1982 and subsequently Ahmad Mian refused to live in the house of the informant as Ghardamad and hence a false case had been instituted. 5. 5. Both the courts below gave a concurrent findings that on 27-9-1982 the petitioner No.1 Ahmad Mian kidnapped Bano alias Husna Bano, daughter of the informant who is a minor aged 15 years and also took her to different places where she was subjected to forcible rape and subsequently the girl was recovered at village Satbarwa in the house of both the petitioners. 6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that on the point of kidnapping or rape or wrongful confinement definitely P.W. 2 (the victim girl) is the only witness and from her evidence it can be said that she had only stated about the main accused Ahmad Mian that when she was alone in the house, Ahmad Mian came alone and on false pretext she was taken to different places. She was also subject to rape and she has not stated a single word that the father of the petitioner and other family members actually played some roll Admittedly P.W. 2 is the victim and she is the only witness on the point of kidnapping and on rape and from her evidence, it can be said that only Ahmad is responsible for the kidnapping and for her wrongful confinement and also he committed rape on the point of threat and at that time, the other petitioner, who is the father of Ahmad Mian was not at all present. So in any view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the conviction of Abdul Mian, -father of the petitioner -Ahmad Mian under Sec. 366-A is absolutely unjustified and without material on record. 7. So far the petitioner, Ahmad Mian is concerned, there is sufficient material on the record to show that he voluntarily took the victim girl who is minor on 27-9-1982 and also by threat on the point of pistol committed rape. Not only, it is the defence version that she voluntarily married and there was Nikah on 30-9-1982 and in support of that contention, a Moulvi D.W. 1 was examined and he has proved Ext. A. On the point of Nikah, it is clear from the evidence of D.W. 1 also that Nikah was performed in different village and mother and father of the victim girl were also definitely not present and the victim girl has also denied that she had not given any consent- for Nikah. A. On the point of Nikah, it is clear from the evidence of D.W. 1 also that Nikah was performed in different village and mother and father of the victim girl were also definitely not present and the victim girl has also denied that she had not given any consent- for Nikah. Further, the counsel for the petitioners was directed to produce the victim girl in court but if at all he admits that she married with the petitioner Ahmad Mian and living as a husband and wife but inspite of several adjournments, the girl could not be produced. Moreover, from the evidence on record, it appears that the victim girl was married to a different person and living with him as-husband and wife. So the defence version that the victim girl herself left with Ahmad Mian and also married him under the Muslim Law on 30-9-1982 had not been proved at all. 8. Accordingly, the trial court as well as the appellate court perfectly justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant Ahmad Mian under Secs. 366/366-A and also 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years each under all the counts and sentences will run concurrently. So far the order of sentence against the petitioner, Ahmad Mian is hereby confirmed and maintained. So far the fine of Rs. 100 and in default undergo R.I. for one year is hereby modified that in default to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 the petitioner. Ahmad Mian will undergo R.I. for one month only. So far the revision application preferred against Ahmad Mian is hereby dismissed. On the other hand practically there is no evidence to justify the conviction of other petitioner. Abdul Mian father of the petitioner No.1 Ahmad Mian under Sec. 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and as such the conviction and sentence as recorded against Abdul Mian in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1984 dated 14-7-1988 by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge. Palamau at Daltonganj as also in Criminal Appeal No. 112 Of 1988 dated 14-7-1988 passed by Shree Narayan Choudhary. 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge Palamau is set aside and Abdul Mian is hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 9. In the result, the revision application as against the petitioner. Palamau at Daltonganj as also in Criminal Appeal No. 112 Of 1988 dated 14-7-1988 passed by Shree Narayan Choudhary. 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge Palamau is set aside and Abdul Mian is hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 9. In the result, the revision application as against the petitioner. Ahmad Mian is dismissed and that of Abdul Mian is allowed in the matter indicated above. Abdul Mian is discharged from liability of his bail bond. So far the bail bond of Ahmad Mian is concerned, the same is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the trial Court immediately for undergoing the imprisonment failing which the trial Court will take all steps for his arrest. Revision of Petitioner No.1 dismissed and of other petitioner allowed.