Judgment P.N.Yadav, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2000/1.9.2000 Dassed by Sri Ravindra Nath Verma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1995 whereby and where under he convicted appellant Jaimangal Paswan under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and he also convicted co-accused Sheonath Paswan under Sections 366-A and 376 of the Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under the first count and ten years under the second count, both the sentence having been ordered to run concurrently. 2. It may be noted at the very outset that co-accused Sheonath Paswan is not appellant before this Court. This appeal has been preferred only by Jai Mangal Paswan. 3. In the night between 4th and 5th December, 1992 Mira Kumari alias Mirang Kumari, aged about 13 years, daughter of informant Chandrika Das (PW 3) was sleeping in the her room along with her younger sister Ranju Kumari PW 3 Chandrika Das was also sleeping in his house. At about 4.00 a.m. in the morning, Shanbhu Das (PW 2) arrived at his house and he intimated him that his sister Sudama alias Sudamia Devi aged about 20 years, who was already married to one Sipahi Das to Raxaul was missing from the house. PW 3 told him that it was just possible that she (Shdamia Devi) might have gone to attend to natures call. In the meanwhile wife of PW 3 came out of her house and informed that her daughter Mira Kumari was not in the house. PW 3 got perplexed and he along with others, such as, Mahabir Das, Ram Janak Das and Ghanshyam Das set out in search of Mira Kumari. In the process PW 3 and others visited villages, such as, Garahiya Petekha etc. One Tingan Das of village Garahiya informed PW 3 that while he was attending to natures call in the filed at about 2-3 a.m. the appellant Jaimangal Paswan and Sheonath Paswan were seen taking away Mira Kumari and Sudamia Devi with them in the west direction. In the process PW 3 and others visited villages, such as, Garahiya Petekha etc. One Tingan Das of village Garahiya informed PW 3 that while he was attending to natures call in the filed at about 2-3 a.m. the appellant Jaimangal Paswan and Sheonath Paswan were seen taking away Mira Kumari and Sudamia Devi with them in the west direction. Ganesh Paswan of village Karania said to PW 3 that he has seen the appellant and Sheo Nath Paswan in suspicious manner moving near the house of Shambhu Das (PW 2) at about 2.00 a.m. in the night. Priest (Sadhun) of Jamuna Math stated to PW 3 that the appellant and Sheonath with two girls with them went to the math at about 3.00 a.m. and soon they set out towards Motihari. Sambhu Paswan of village Patekha stated that he had seen the appellant and Sheo Nath Paswan taking away both the girls referred to above on a bus meant for Siwan. 4. The informant PW 3 then got confirmed that the appellant and Sheonath Paswan abducted his daughter Mira Kumari as well as Sudamia Devi with an intent that they-might be married against their will or they might be seduced to illicit intercourse and he went to the Police Station and got his statement recorded on the basis of which FIR (Ext. 2) was drawn up and Mothihari Muffasil PS Case No. 91/92 giving rise to present case under Sections 366 and 366-A of the Code was registered investigation started and after completion there of chargesheet was submitted and finally the trial commenced after commitment. 5. Neither the appellant nor co-accused Sheonath Paswan entered into defence. However, from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and the statement of the appellant and his associate recorded under Section 313 Cr PC the defence seemed to be that of total denial and false implication. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, in all. The learned trial court after taking the facts, circumstances and evidence brought on record, into account found and held the appellant guilty and he convicted and sentenced him as stated above vide the impugned judgment and order. 7. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, in all. The learned trial court after taking the facts, circumstances and evidence brought on record, into account found and held the appellant guilty and he convicted and sentenced him as stated above vide the impugned judgment and order. 7. The appellant assailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against him on the ground that it was not based on law and facts rather it was based on mere surmises and conjectures. 8. Now the only point for determination is whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant can be maintained and upheld on the basis of the materials available on the record. 9. As already stated above, accused Sheonath Paswan is not the appellant before this Court and as such the evidence and findings recorded against him will not be discussed here. 10. This Court is merely to consider whether the charge levelled against the appellant has been brought home beyond reasonbale doubt. 11. Victim Meera Kumari alias Mirang Kumari appeared as PW 5. She supported the prosecution case in its entirety by stating on oath that at about 9-10 p.m. in the night on a Monday about four years ago, which corresponded to the date of occurrence, she was in her house and just then Sudama Devi alias Sudamia Devi went to her and asked her to accompany her to witness and enjoy a dance going on at village Bhoreharwa and both of them set out for village Bhoreharwa and no sooner had PW 5 along with Sudama Devi arrived at a place a little away from the aforesaid village, then accused Sheonath Paswan caught hold of her, shut and pressed her mouth and the appellant was also accompanying him. PW 5 started weeping whereupon accused Sheonath Paswan brandished and pointed a dagger to her and all the three, namely, appellant Jaimangal Paswan, accused Sheonath Paswan and Sudamia Devi took her to Village Sukhainwa was in the district of Sitamarhi and they kept her in the house of one Nagina Mahto and accused Sheonath Pawasn forcibly committed rape on her there. PW 5 further stated that from village Sukhainwa she was taken to village Pokhar under Kateya Police Station and he kept her there for three days in the house of his brother-in-law and from there all the three i.e. Sheonath Paswan, Sudamia Devi and the appellant took her to village Bhokhrana in the district of Bettiah i.e.. West Champaran and from their they took her to Bhainsalotan. The witness added that one Indrasan of village Bhokhrana having relationship in the house of the victim arrived at Bhainsalotan and victim Mira Kumari happened to see her and she intimated him as to how she was kidnapped by the miscreants and thereafter said Indrasan started taking the miscreants as well as victim to Bettiah by a bus but appellant and Sudama Devi slipped away on the pretence that they would accompany them after having tea. It is in the evidence of PW 5 that Indrasan brought her and Sheonath Paswan to Bettiah Mufassil Police Station and from there to Motihari. It is in the evidence of PW 5 that the aforesaid Indrasan happens to be the brother-in-law of the appellant. Towards the fag end of her examination-in-chief PW 5 stated that she was ravished by accused Sheonath Paswan even at Bhainsalotan. The statement of victim Mira Kumari was recorded at Motihari Muffassil Police Station and her statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. was also recorded by the Magistrate. 12. In her cross examination victim Mira Kumari stated that Sudamia Devi was already married but her husband had deserted her and thereafter she became the wife of the appellant and both were living as husband and wife and she had also given birth to a female child from the appellant. She said that village Bhokharana where she was being taken by Sudamia Devi to witness a dance situated in the vicinity of her village. She gave a vivid account of the manner in which she was taken from one place to another. She was suggested that as the appellant belong to a different caste and he married Sudamia Devi, her caste men got infuriated and enraged and that was why she concocted the instant case. She denied the suggestion. Mere suggestion is no proof. Nothing material going to the root of the case was elicit in her cross examination made on behalf of the appellant. She denied the suggestion. Mere suggestion is no proof. Nothing material going to the root of the case was elicit in her cross examination made on behalf of the appellant. In her cross examination made on behalf of accused Sheonath Paswan also she reiterated that it was all the three accused persons, namely, appellant Jaimangal Paswan, accused Sheonath Paswan and Sudamia Devi who had abducted her and taken to various places and ultimately she was recovered and handed over to her parents by the police. 13. PW 3 Chandrika Das. father of victim Mira Kumari supported the prosecution case as led in the FIR. He gave a detailed account as to how he was informed by the aforesaid Tingan Das, Ganesh Das, priest of the Math and Sambhu Das regarding abduction of Mira Kumari by appellant Jaimangal Paswan and accused Sheonath Paswan and Sudamia Devi. He also stated that Sudamia Devi was living as wife of the appellant and she had children from him. It is in his evidence that his daughter Mira Kumari was recovered and handed over to him about 25 days after her abduction. PW 3 stated that after her daughter Mira Kumari was recovered and released to him, she stated that appellant Sheonath Paswan and Sudamia Devi had abducted and took her away with them. He was cross examined at length but nothing was ebcited in his cross examination to demolish his veracity. 14. PW 4 Manoj Das was brother of victim Mira Kumari. He stated that after the victim aged about 13 years was abducted, he and others set out in search of her and in the process it transpired that the appellant and accused Sheo Nath Paswan and Sudamia Devi had induced and allured her and had taken her away with them. He stated that one month after her abduction she was recovered by the police from West Champaran. He also stood the test of cross examination. 15. PW 2 Shambhu Das was brother of Sudamia Devi. After he detected that Sudamia Devi was missing from the house, he went to the informant (PW 3) and intimated him accordingly and just then he also learnt that Mira Kumari, daugther of PW 3 was also missing from the house. He also stood the test of cross examination. 15. PW 2 Shambhu Das was brother of Sudamia Devi. After he detected that Sudamia Devi was missing from the house, he went to the informant (PW 3) and intimated him accordingly and just then he also learnt that Mira Kumari, daugther of PW 3 was also missing from the house. He added that in course of search at about 10-11 a.m. on the next day he learnt that the appellant and Sheonath Paswan had abducted Sudamia Devi as well as Mira Kumari. In his cross examination he admitted that Sudamia was living as wife of the appellant and she had also children from him. The witness was not cross examined at all in regard to the involvement and participation of the appellant in the abduction of Mira Kumari. 16. Victim Mira Kumari (PW 5) is the most important and competent witness in the case. She fully supported the prosecution version that she was abducted by the appellant along with his associate Sheonath Paswan as will as Sudamia Devi. Though PWs 2, 3 and 4 did not see the appellant or his associates taking away victim Mira Kumari, their statement constituted a strong piece of circumstances evidence corroborating the evidence of the victim PW 5. 17. PW 6 was Dr. Jasbir Sharan of Sadar Hospital, Motihari, who had examined the victim Mira Kumari on 28.12.1992. The Doctor stated that victim Mira Kumari was aged about 15-16 years. The evidence and the findings of the Doctor in regard to infection of sexual assault or injury found on the person of the victim is not required to be discussed here for the charge of commission of rape was against Sheonath Paswan, who is not the appellant here. 18. PW 1 Ganesh Hajra did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile by the prosecution. 19. Tingan Das, priest of the Math and Sambhu Das, who allegedly saw the appellant and accused Sheonath and Sudamia Devi taking away Mira Kumari with them and intimated PW 3 in this regard were not examined by the prosecution. However, their non- examination in the face, of un-impeachable evidence of Victim Mira Kumari (PW 5) is of no consequence and on account of their non-examination the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown over board. 20. The IO too was not examined. However, their non- examination in the face, of un-impeachable evidence of Victim Mira Kumari (PW 5) is of no consequence and on account of their non-examination the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown over board. 20. The IO too was not examined. No contradict or discrepancy occurred in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses nor was their attention drawn to their previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr PC. In view of the nature of offence, inspection of the place of occurrence is little significance. The victim has already given vivid account of the manner in which she was induced and allured and was abducted and taken from one place to another. The description of the place of occurrence made by the IO is of no consequence in the present case. 21. The evidence of victim PW 5 considered together with and corroborated by the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 abundantly established that she was abducted by the appellant and his associate Shenonath Pawasn as well as Sudamia Devi. 22. There is nothing on the records to give rise to an inference that victim Mira Kumari was a consenting party and she had accompanied the appellant and his associates out of her sweet will and consent rather there is abundance of materials to show that she was forcibly on the point of dagger (Vide Paragraph 1 of her evidence) taken away and contained at various places referred to above. None of the prosecution witnesses including PW 5 was even suggested that victim Mira Kumari accompanied the miscreants including appellant suo motu and out. of her consent. 23. It is also to be observed that victim Mira Kumari as per her evidence as well as the evidence of her father and brother and the findings of the Doctor was minor girl aged about 13.14 years at the time of incident. She was not in a position to legally give her consent for her marriage or for her accompanying the appellant or any one else. She being minor, her consent had no value in the eye of law. Even if she on account of alurement and inducement given to her had consented to accompany the appellant, the matter would not have been different and even in that circumstances, the appellant would have been held guilty for her abduction. 24. She being minor, her consent had no value in the eye of law. Even if she on account of alurement and inducement given to her had consented to accompany the appellant, the matter would not have been different and even in that circumstances, the appellant would have been held guilty for her abduction. 24. The materials on record abundantly establish that the victim girl was abducted by the appellant and his two associates referred to above. It has come in evidence that she was taken from one place to another and everywhere she was confined and on several occasions Sheonath Paswan ravished her. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the victim girl was abducted with an intent that she might be married to a person against her will or that she might be secured to illicit intercourse. Ingredients of Section 366-A of the Code stood well established. 25. In view of the facts, circumstances and evidence discussed and the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, it is to be held that the prosecution brought home the charge under Section 366-A of the Code levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court rightly found and held the appellant guilty and convicted him. The sentence of five years awarded to the appellant too does not seem to be excessive and exorbitant warranting interference by this Court. 26. For the reasons stated and the finding made above, it is to be held that there is no merit in this appeal which must fail. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence stands maintained and confirmed.