Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. All these three Government Appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.2.1987 passed in S.T. No. 36/34 of 1984/86. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The prosecution case is that one Mumtaz Ahmad gave a written report to the Officer-in-Charge of Hayaghat Police Station on 19.10.1982 at about 7.30 a.m. stating therein that he along with his father Chaudhary Md. Sharif, Md. Imran, Samiur Rahman, Mustaque Ahmed was sitting in the hall of his Darwaza. Ten persons named in the First Information Report and three unknown persons variously armed and entered in the court-yard of his house. He along with others who were sitting there also went to his court-yard but some of the accused- persons surrounded them. His father and maternal uncle protested on which they were assaulted. Shafiur Rahman & Baua Mian lifted his sister Afsana Khatoon aged about 16 years on his shoulder and some of the accused-persons caught her hands and feet. While they were taking her out side the house they uttered that unless Rs. 50,000/- was paid she would not be set free. They also threatened that if any case was lodged all of them would be killed and their houses would be set on fire. Out of fear case was not instituted soon after the occurrence. On the basis of aforesaid written report formal First Information Report was drawn, investigation was taken up and on conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted. On receipt of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. The defence of the respondents was that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in the case. Afsana Khatoon was major girl aged about 21 years. She was very close to Shafiur Rahman @ Baua Mian from before. She willingly left her parents house to stay with Shafiur Rahman. When this incident came to the knowledge of the people of the village the prosecution case was concocted and Shafiur Rahman and his men had been falsely implicated in the case. 4. The trial Court convicted Shafiur Rahman @ Baua Mian, Md. Shahid, Ladley and Murtuza, respondents in G.A. Nos. 57/87 and 58/87 for the offence under Section 376, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven years. 4. The trial Court convicted Shafiur Rahman @ Baua Mian, Md. Shahid, Ladley and Murtuza, respondents in G.A. Nos. 57/87 and 58/87 for the offence under Section 376, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven years. However, they were acquitted for the charges under Sections 452, 380 and 366-A, IPC. Respondents in G.A. Nos. 59/87 were acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. 5. G.A. No. 57/87 has been filed against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents for the offences under Sections 452, 380 and 366-A, IPC. G.A. No. 58/87 has been filed against the respondents for enhancement of sentence under Section 376, IPC. G.A. No. 59/87 has been filed against the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents from all the charges. Respondents in G.A. Nos. 57/87 and 58/87 who were convicted for the offence under Section 376, IPC had also filed Cr.A. Nos. 84/87 and 91/87 against the judgment and order of conviction. The aforesaid two appeals were heard by a single bench as the conviction was less than 10 years and they were acquitted. The learned single Judge has held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. The learned Judge also held that Afsana Khatoon was a major girl aged about 21 years. She was very close to Shafiur Rahman @ Baua Mian. She willingly left her parents house to stay with Shafiur Rahman and when this fact came to the knowledge of the people, prosecution case was filed against Shafiur Rahman and his men. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, acquittal of respondents is bad in law, whereas learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents in G.A. Nos. 57/87 and 58/87 were convicted but they have been acquitted by the appellate Court i.e. a single bench of this Court. Since the main charge has failed, therefore, there is no justification for convicting the respondents for minor charges. 7. The facts which are not in dispute are that respondents were put on trial. Only respondents in G.A. Nos. 57/87 and 58/87 were convicted for the offence under Section 376, IPC. They were acquitted from other charges. Respondents in G.A. 59/87 were acquitted from all charges levelled against them. 7. The facts which are not in dispute are that respondents were put on trial. Only respondents in G.A. Nos. 57/87 and 58/87 were convicted for the offence under Section 376, IPC. They were acquitted from other charges. Respondents in G.A. 59/87 were acquitted from all charges levelled against them. Respondents who were convicted by the trial Court were also acquitted by a single bench of this Court and finding has been recorded that Afsana Khatoon was aged about 21 years and she was very close to Shafiur Rahman. She out of her freewill left her parents house to stay with Shafiur Rahman. When this fact came to the knowledge of the people of the village the case was lodged against Shafiur Rahman and "his men. The appellate Court also held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. The judgment and order passed by the appellate Court was not challenged before any superior Court. Therefore, the said judgment has become final and finding recorded by the appellate Court, in our view, cannot be interfered as it would result in inconsistency. Therefore, since the finding recorded by the appellate Court cannot be interfered by this Court, in our view, there is no justification to alter or convert the judgment of acquittal in conviction. So far, cannot be convicted because of the fact that appellate Court has recorded a finding that Afsana Khatoon was aged about 21 years and she had left her parents house and had gone to Shafiur Rahman to stay with him out of her freewill. Unless the finding recorded by the appellate Court is interfered with, which is not possible in law as the same has not been challenged no order of conviction under Section 452, 366-A or 380, IPC can be passed. Moreover, since main charge has failed, there is no justification of convicting respondents for rest of the charges. 8. Thus in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we find ho reason to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents. There is no question of enhancement of sentence as respondents in Cr. Appeal No. 58/87 have been acquitted by the appellate Court. Thus all these three Government appeals are dismissed. A.K.Sinha, J. 9 I agree.