JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - The challenge is to the propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence dated 8.12.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No. 75/46 of 1986. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.2.1986 at about 8 p.m. at Laltanki, Rourkela, the accused Jagadish Razak, kidnapped Sakuntala Pandey, the minor daughter of Chandrapal Pandey, with intent that she may be compelled to marry him against her will. Chandrapal Pandey (P.W.9) is a Tea Stall owner where the accused Jagadish used to frequent his visit to take tea. On 23.2.1986 Chandrapal Pandey returned home from Rourkela at about 8 p.m., when his wife (P.W.2) reported to him that their daughter Sakuntala Pandey (P.W.5) did not return home till then after witnessing Video show somewhere near their locality. P.W.2 and P.W. 9 began to search but the daughter Sakuntala Pandey could not be found. On enquiry, P.W. 3 Shyam Sundar Nayak, P.W. 4 Pradip Kumar Barik, told that they had seen their daughter Sakuntala Pandey in the company of Jagadish Razak in the Rourkela Bus Stand. Accordingly, they came to Tangarpali Police-Station and reported the incident. On the basis of information a case was registered and investigation started. During investigation, the victim girl Sakuntala Pandey (P.W.5) was recovered from the native place of the accused at Motihari, Bihar. Both the accused and the victim girl were brought to Rourkela. They were medically examined on requisition. Subsequently, the victim girl was made over to the custody of her father. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the accused Jagadish Razak was sent up for trial. 3. A prima facie case having been established a charge under Section 366, I.P.C. was framed against the accused Jagadish. 4. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses to establish its case whereas the defence examined none. 5. The defence was a plea of denial. 6. The trial Court found the present appellant guilty of the charge under Section 366, I.P.C. convicted him thereunder and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. No fine was, however, imposed in addition to the substantive term of imprisonment. 7. The appellant has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. It has been contended that the finding of the trial Court is not supported by evidence. No fine was, however, imposed in addition to the substantive term of imprisonment. 7. The appellant has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. It has been contended that the finding of the trial Court is not supported by evidence. It is particularly submitted that the trial Court was wrong in placing reliance upon the testimony of P.W. 3 and P.W.4, in view of discrepant nature of their evidence. Learned counsel for the State, however, supports the judgment. 8. The victim girl Sakuntala Pandey (P.W.5) is the daughter of Chandrapal Pandey, who runs a Tea stall within Tangarpali Police-station. The accused Jagadish used to visit the said tea stall to take tea frequently. On the date of incident, Chandrapal Pandey was away from home. He returned home at about 8 p.m. in the evening when his wife P.W.2 reported to him that their daughter Sakuntala Pandey (P.W.5) was missing. P.W. 9 and P.W.2 conducted a search for their daughter in the vicinity but the victim girl remained untraced. Later, P.W. 3 and P.W.4 disclosed to them that they had seen Sakuntala (P.W.5) in the company of accused Jagadish. They further reported that Jagadish, the accused had taken the girl towards Rourkela Bus stand. They did not suspect anything because the accused Jagadish used to come to the Tea stall of the father of victim quite often for taking tea. These are the two witnesses who had last seen the victim girl in the company of accused Jagadish. Later, after registration of the case, the victim girl was recovered from the native place of accused Jagadish at Motihari, Bihar. There is nothing on record to suggest that these two witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3 and 4, have deposed falsely. We find from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 11, that the victim girl was recovered from the house of Jagadish at Motihari, Bihar. 9. According to the prosecution, the age of the victim girl was 11 to 12 years at the time of incident. The Radiologist (P.W.7) after ossification test was of the opinion that the age of the victim girl was between 10 to 14 years. He has given elaborate reasons to arrive at the conclusion. 9. According to the prosecution, the age of the victim girl was 11 to 12 years at the time of incident. The Radiologist (P.W.7) after ossification test was of the opinion that the age of the victim girl was between 10 to 14 years. He has given elaborate reasons to arrive at the conclusion. Chandrapal (P.W.9) and Laxmi Devi (P.W.2) i.e., the parents of the victim girl also say that the age of the victim girl was aged about 11 to 12 years at the time of incident. Therefore, it was clearly established that the victim girl was a minor at the time of the incident. We find from the evidence of the victim girl (P.W.5) that on the day of incident towards evening she had gone to witness a Video cinema show near their house. She returned home at about 7 p.m. The accused was taking tea in the Tea stall of P.W.4. The victim girl was known to the accused from before because the latter used to visit the tea stall of her father quite often. We find from her testimony that the accused asked her to accompany him for going to his native village. She refused but she was dragged towards the bus stand forcibly. Later the accused forcibly took her to Rourkela Bus stand therefrom to an unknown Railway station. The victim pleaded that she be allowed to go back to her house but the accused took her by train to a distant Railway-station. There she was detained in a house where one old lady was kept on guard. She was not allowed to come out. On enquiry the accused told her that he would marry her. All the time she was weeping and protesting. She was supplied with a sarees, petticoat to her by an old lady. Subsequently, the police arrived and recovered her. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the victim girl. After recovery, the victim girl was medically examined by Dr. Renuka Kar (P.W.6). She noticed that Hymen is loose and admits of two fingers easily without pain during P.V. Examination. Labia Minora are thick, possibly intercourse has been made. The Doctor could not tell whether the intercourse had been recently made or not. After recovery, the victim girl was medically examined by Dr. Renuka Kar (P.W.6). She noticed that Hymen is loose and admits of two fingers easily without pain during P.V. Examination. Labia Minora are thick, possibly intercourse has been made. The Doctor could not tell whether the intercourse had been recently made or not. Any way, on an analysis of the evidence it became crystal clear that the prosecution has been successful in proving the case under Section 366, I.P.C. against the accused Jagadish. 10. So the trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting the accused and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for a period of three years. No interference with the order of conviction and sentence in called for. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant do surrender to the bail bond to serve out the sentence forthwith. Final Result : Dismissed