JUDGMENT Banerjee, J. : This appeal, is directed against the judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No. 2(11)/81 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 8th Court, Alipore, convicting the appellant under Section 366 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7½ years with a specific direction that the period of detention already undergone by the accused be set off against the period of conviction. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is the appellant/accused kidnapped a woman, namely, Seema Gour from a house at Mahatma Gandhi Road, P.S. Budge Budge on 5th November, 1979. On that day, the victim girl's father Shyam Karan Gour (P.W.1) had left for his office. Her brother Rajesh (P.W. 8) had left for' his school at 10 a.m. Her mother had also been to her sister's house at Behala. In fact, the victim was all alone in the house. The victim Seema was a student of Kenduadihi Girls High School in the District of Bankura and she used to read in Class-VIII. But, at the relevant point of time she was not prosecuting her studies and used to stay at their Budge Budge house. On that day, the appellant/accused came and approached Seema when she was all alone in the house to leave the house with him and also allured her that he would marry her and accordingly Seema left her house with accused whom she knew from before as Amit Roy. They had been to Howrah Station wherefrom they went to different places like Burdwan, Durgapur and Bankura. In the meantime, her father Shyam Karan (P.W. 1) returned in the afternoon and he did not find his wife or his daughter in the house. On enquiry from his son he came to learn that possibly her daughter accompanied her mother when the later had been to his sister's house at Behala. But on 8th or 9th November, 1979 his wife returned home alone and from her he came to know that their daughter Seema did not accompany her. Then he made enquries from Tarun Babu (P.W. 6) a nearby shop owner and came to learn that one of his employees accused Mustakim @ Ganga was also missing from very date, when his daughter Seema was missing. He also came to know from Kamal Chakraborty (P.W. 7) that he had seen the accused with Seema going together on 5.11.79. Then he made enquries from Tarun Babu (P.W. 6) a nearby shop owner and came to learn that one of his employees accused Mustakim @ Ganga was also missing from very date, when his daughter Seema was missing. He also came to know from Kamal Chakraborty (P.W. 7) that he had seen the accused with Seema going together on 5.11.79. Thereafter, the witness had been to Budge Budge P.S. and lodged the F.I.R. On the basis of the F.I.R. one case was started and P.W. 29, S.I. Monindra Nath Roy who was attached to Budge Budge P.S. at the relevant point of time took up the investigation of the same. In course of the investigation of the case, the said witness visited the house in which the informant used to stay as a tenant, prepared rough sketch map, examined the witnesses. Searched for the accused and also the victim girl, but could not succeed initially. Subsequently, on 11.1.80, the victim girl was recovered from the house of the complainant pursuant to the statement of the complainant. He seized wearing apparel of the victim girl on a seizure list. He got the victim girl examined medically. Subsequently 6n 13.1.80 he arrested the appellant/accused from his house within Budge Budge P.S. on completion of the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 366/376 I.P.C. Subsequently, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on consideration of the materials-on-record framed charge under Section 366 I.P.C. against the accused. The trial proceeded when the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to such charge. 3. The learned trial Judge found on the basis of the evidence on record that as per previous arrangement with the accused, victim girl had been to a road-crossing wherefrom the accused took her to different places from 5.11.79 till her return to their house on 11.1.80. He also noted that two of the relations of the accused and one owner of a house at Bishnupur stated that the accused lived with the victim girl in the house for some time as husband and wife. He further pointed out that all these facts and circumstances, which came out through the evidence were admitted by the accused in the confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P .C. He further noted that the accused made the confessional statement when he was on bail and under no compulsion from any quarter to make such a confession. He further pointed out that all these facts and circumstances, which came out through the evidence were admitted by the accused in the confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P .C. He further noted that the accused made the confessional statement when he was on bail and under no compulsion from any quarter to make such a confession. The learned Judge specifically noted that accused admitted in •the confessional statement that pursuant to their decision he and Seema, the victim girl had been to Howrah Station and from there went to different places. He also admitted that he and Seema stayed in the house of his maternal uncle and aunt for few days and he also kept Seema in the house of P.Ws. 19 and 20 and within this time committed sexual intercourse with Seema on several occassions. In this way, he came to a firm finding that there was active participation of the accused in the matter of taking away Seema from the house of her father and in fact the accused took away Seema from the house of her father and made a confessional statement on this point. He also came to a finding that Seema was much below 18 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence on 5.11.79. Therefore, it was established that appellant/accused kidnapped Seema a minor girl with the intent that she might be compelled to marry against her will on in order that she might be seduced to illicit intercourse. 4. At the time of argument, the learned Advocate appearing for the State has supported the findings recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in coming to a conclusion about the guilty of the appellant/accused. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the appellant has wanted to assail the order of confection and the sentence awarded to the appellant/accused mainly, on two fold reasons. Firstly, it is submitted that the entire evidence would go to show that the victim girl was a consenting party and so if the girl was not found to be minor, there would be no offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C. Secondly, it is submitted on the basis of the medical evidence that the appellant/accused should get the benefit of the medical report. 5. 5. In this case, prosecution has examined in all 29 witnesses including the I.O. and the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim girl and the confessional statement of the accused under Section 164 Cr. P.C. (P.W. 27) and also P.W. 28, a clerk attached to Kenduadihi Girls High School at Bankura who produced the relevant entry in the Admission Register and on the basis of that entry in the Admission Register came to depose about the age of the victim girl recorded in the school. The prosecution also examined P.W. 21 Dr. D. B. Mukherjee who on 12.1.80 was attached to Police Case Hospital at Alipore and on that day who had the occasion to examine the victim Seema Gour. On being identified before him by the constable in connection with Budge Budge P.S. Case No. 12 dated 9.11.79. According to this doctor, the victim girl was aged about 16-17 years at the time of her examination. 6. Section 366 I.P.C. provides punishment for kidnapping or for abducting any woman with the intention that she may be compelled to marry any person against her will or she may be forced or may be seduced to illicit intercourse. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship has been defined under Section 361 I.P.C. as taking of the minor out of the keeping of the guardian without the guardian's consent. On the other hand, the word "abduction" has been defined under Section 362 of the I.P.C. and such offence is complete if the accused takes the woman away by deceitful means intending to seduce her to sexual intercourse. In the instant case, in the Admission Register of the school the date of birth of the girl in question was recorded as 20.12.85 that is to say the girl was hardly 14 years old at the time of the incident, namely, when the accused induced her to leave the house of her father and to go with him with a specific allurement to marry her. On the other hand, the doctor on examining the victim girl found that victim Seema was between 16 to 17 years of age on the date of examination that is to say 14.1.80. He also was of the opinion that the variation of 2 years in either way could be given. On the other hand, the doctor on examining the victim girl found that victim Seema was between 16 to 17 years of age on the date of examination that is to say 14.1.80. He also was of the opinion that the variation of 2 years in either way could be given. In the last line of his cross-examination of the doctor finally opined even giving allowance for 2 years, the girl might be upto 18 on the date of examination that is to say on 14.1.80 and not more that. It transpires from the judgment impugned that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge simply jumped to the conclusion that the victim girl was a minor at the time of commission of offence; without, assigning any reason or without discussing the relevant evidence on this point, which was available in the record. That being so, it can be said without hesitation that the decision of the learned trial Court on this particular point, cannot be accepted. It is not known on what basis the age of the girl was recorded in the school in the District of Bankura. But, it is evident from the record that the victim girl did not prosecute her studies in that school for a long time. Rather she was admitted in the school in the year, 1979, in which year, offence complained of took place. To speak it more clearly, the victim girl took admission in the first part of the year, 1979 and the offence complained of took place in the last part of the same year. In this background, it is hardly possible for us to rely on such recording of the age of the victim girl. Moreover, when the doctor's evidence' is available, the evidence like recording of the age of the victim girl in her school cannot have any importance for the purpose of determining the question whether the victim girl was under 18 years of age that is to say whether she was a minor at the time of the commission of offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C. From the evidence of the doctor we have already found that on examination of the girl he found that the girl was between 16/17 years of age. He also gave an opinion that the variation of 2 years in either way could be given for the purpose of determination of the actual age of the victim. Judging the question at issue in that light we fail to understand how could the doctor in the last line of the cross-examination make a statement that giving that allowance for 2 years, the girls age might be up to 18 years and not more than that. In our considered opinion having regard to the fact that doctor on examining the victim girl found that the age of the girl on the date of examination was between 16 to 17 years, it would be very difficult to come to a conclusion that the victim girl Seema was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence complained of applying the allowance as stated by the doctor. This is more so, in view of the fact that in a criminal trial, the accused must get the benefit of doubt arid there cannot be any finding that the girl was a minor at the time of the alleged offence unless it can be clearly unequivocally stated that the age of the girl was below 18 years. . 7. But, here before we come to a final ,conclusion in this case, we should also point out to another very important aspect of the matter which is relevant for deciding the question whether the appellant/accused committed an offence punishable under Section 366 or not. We have already seen that Section 366 I.P.C. provides punishment for kidnapping or abduction of any woman. If the girl in question is 18 years or over, she can only be abducted and not kidnapped. We have also seen from the definition of "abduction" under Section 362 I.P.C. that it requires two things as noted above in the instant case. The relevant allegation is that the accused induced the victim girl by deceitful means so that the girl left her father's place and went with him. We have also seen from the definition of "abduction" under Section 362 I.P.C. that it requires two things as noted above in the instant case. The relevant allegation is that the accused induced the victim girl by deceitful means so that the girl left her father's place and went with him. Now, mere abduction does not make out an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. It must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 366 I.P.C. that is to say such abduction must be with the intention that the woman is compelled to marry any person against her will or she is forced or seduced to illicit intercourse etc. In the instant case, we have seen that the evidence or record clearly indicates that the girl was a consenting party that is to say the girl had the consent to leave her house with the accused for the purpose of marriage between the parties. But, it is the further allegation of the girl which requires to be considered herein order to come to a conclusion whether an offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C. has been committed by the appellant/accused or not. It has been alleged that the girl used to know the accused as one Amit Roy a bachelor. But, after staying with him for some days in different places she discovered that the accused was a muslim, a married man with wife and children. So here the allegation is that the accused induced the victim merely by a false representation that he was a hindu bachelor available for marriage suppressing the truth that he was a muslim and a married man with children and the very object of such inducement was that the girl would leave her father's place and would go with the accused, so that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse. The victim girl on examined as P.W. 2 stated that she knew the accused as Amit Roy from before as accused allured her that he would marry her and so she was agreeable to go with the accused. The prosecution has also led evidence to show that the girl with the accused went to different places like Burdwan, Durgapur, Bankura and from the evidence of P.W. 16, Netai Ch. Modak, we find that accused and victim girl stayed in one room as tenant. The prosecution has also led evidence to show that the girl with the accused went to different places like Burdwan, Durgapur, Bankura and from the evidence of P.W. 16, Netai Ch. Modak, we find that accused and victim girl stayed in one room as tenant. They stayed in that room as husband and wife and at that time the witness, the landlord of the house knew the accused as Amit. The accused also made a confessional statement while he was on bail and there he indicated that during the time when he used to stay with the victim girl together he had sexual intercourse with her. It also further transpires from the evidence of P.W. 16 that his specific evidence that accused was known to him as Amit was not challenged in the cross-examination. Even the evidence of P.W. 2, the victim girl that she knew the accused as Amit from before was not challenged in the cross-examination. Thus, from the evidence on record it transpires that the victim girl knew the accused as Amit, as stated in her oral testimony. She has disclosed that the accused told her that he would marry her. Her evidence further goes to show that after staying with the accused for some time she came to know for the first time that accused was actually one Mostakim who was married with children. This goes to show that the girl was tempted to go away with the accused knowing him as a hindu by the name of Amit a bachelor. But, the question is whether the allegation is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. We have already seen that the girl with the accused, had been to different places where they stayed together. It has also come into evidence that immediately after discovering the falsehood, the victim girl did not try to withdraw from the society of the accused or to leave the accused. On the other hand, we find from the evidence of the victim girl that from Bankura she came to Calcutta with the accused and thereafter, surrendered in the Court. From the confessional statement of the accused we find that they returned to Calcutta coming to know that the girl's father started a criminal case over the incident. On the other hand, we find from the evidence of the victim girl that from Bankura she came to Calcutta with the accused and thereafter, surrendered in the Court. From the confessional statement of the accused we find that they returned to Calcutta coming to know that the girl's father started a criminal case over the incident. That apart it is not disputed that the accused was an employee of a shop which was situated in a portion of the house where the girl used to reside with her family. So it is not at all probable that the girl would be ignorant about the true identity of the accused. In this way we are constrained to hold that the allegation in this respect seems to us improbable. 8. In the result, we hold that the appellant/accused is entitled to benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances as disclosed above. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction under Section 366 and the sentence thereof should be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant/accused is hereby set aside. Since the appellant/accused is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled. Chowdhury, J. : I agree.