Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant suffered conviction under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code on being tried by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah Camp Court at Bagaha in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1987 and was sentenced to suffer-rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years. 2. The factual matrix are that about a month preceding 6th December, 1985 after Sabra Nisha aged about 15 years was found missing from the house, the worried father rendered fardbeyan before the police of Balmikinagar police station suspecting complicity of appellant alleging that his daughter was frequently going out of her house with the appellant. It was alleged therein that in the night of incident the appellant came to his house and took his daughter in her company to respond to the natures call pursuant to which, she did not return to her house. When the appellant was interrogated by parents of the victim lady, she was making evasive reply and hence suspecting complicity of the appellant, a police case was registered against her. The Investigation commenced when complicity of one Jai Prakash Yadav also came to the notice of the Investigating Agency, and on conclusion of the investigation the police laid chargesheet against the appellant and also Jai Prakash Yadav. 3. The trial eventually commenced in process of which the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 7 and 8 were formal in nature and there was nothing material in their evidences to merit consideration. Khairun Nisha P.W. 1 would state before the court that in the night of occurrence Bindu, the appellant, came to her house and began chatting with Sabra Khatoon and thereafter she took Sabra Khatoon in her company to answer the natures call. As Sabra Khatoon did not come back to her house till late hour of night, hectic searches were made for her when appellant disclosed that she was enticed way, by Jai Prakash Yadav who was a constable posted at Ganauii police Station. Similar was the evidence of Latifan P.W. 2 about Bindu, who visited her house in the night of incident and was chatting with Sabra Khatoon. She however did not claim to have noticed appellant taking Sabra Khatoon in her company. She would further state that on interrogation, it was disclosed by the appellant that Jai Prakash Yadav has enticed away her. She however did not claim to have noticed appellant taking Sabra Khatoon in her company. She would further state that on interrogation, it was disclosed by the appellant that Jai Prakash Yadav has enticed away her. Almost similar was the evidence of Sahwan Mian P.W. 3 about appellant disclosing to the family members about Jai Prakash Yadav, who enticed away Sabra Khatoon. Israil Mian P.W. 4 stated to have iearht about Jai Prakash Yadav who had enticed away Sabra Khatoon with the aid of the appellant. Dinesh Singh P.W. 5 would not make any accusation against the Appellant that she ever visited house of Sabra Khatoon and similar was the evidence of Mahendra Sah P.W. 6. This was all the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution to bring home charges against the appellant. 4. The defence too examined one witness Bijay Kumar Singh D.W. 1 to suggest alibi on the part of Jai Prakash Yadav as he was allegedly on duty on the date of incident. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would impeach the credibility of the prosecution witnesses on the premises that though accusation about abduction of Sabra Khatoon was attributed to both, the appellant and Jai Prakash Yadav, on similar set of evidence while Jai Prakash Yadav was acquitted of the charges by the trial court, the same set of evidences cannot operate adverse to the appellant. The contentions were raised that though witnesses claimed to have witnessed the appellant having taken Sabra Khatoon In her company to answer the natures call in the cross examination they had withdrawn from such statements and the last argument was that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the prosecution was launched against the appellant not before lapse of a month of the incident. 6. The attributions were, led to both the appellant and Jai Prakash Yadav about abduction of Sabra Khatoon and the only evidence against the appellant was about having taken the victim girl in her company from the house and while she was found guilty of the charge, Jai Prakash Yadav who was stated to have enticed away the victim girl, was acquitted of the charge and it seems to me that the trial court was probably obsessed with the defence of alibi of Jai Prakash Yadav. Now adverting the credibility of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 would admit in positive team that though appellant had visited her house but she did not notice as to when she left her house and it was only from her father-in-law that she could know that Sabra Khatoon was missing from the house. P.W. 2 also did not claim to have- witnessed the appellant taking the victim girl in her company as she wouid admit, that only in the morning, she noticed her missing from the house, P.W. 3 would state that suspecting complicity of Bindu, appellant who had visited his house, the prosecution was launched against her. Mahendra Sahu P.W. 6 also would not state about having witnessed appellant taking Sabra Khatoon in her company from the house of Sahwan Mian. The witnesses were stating before the court that Jai Prakash Yadav was usually visiting house of Bindu;Kumari appellant and he was also noticed in her company preceding the incident and it seems that suspecting complicity of the appellant, the prosecution was launched against her which was also admitted by P.W. 3. The investigating Officer of the case was not examined at trial and rightly many questions remained unanswered and as has been urged at Bar, it was not before the lapse of one month that the prosecution was launched against the appellant and Jai Prakash Yadav and hence belated prosecution of the appellant had also introduced serious infirmity in the prosecution case to suggest that the prosecution was launched against her only suspecting her complicity as she was visiting the house of the victim girl. 7. Having taking into consideration the evidences placed on the record and the arguments convassed at Bar, I find that the finding recorded by the trial court against the appellant cannot be sustained in law, which is accordingly set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and bail bonds are also discharged. The appeal thus succeeds.