Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant who was prosecuted for the charge u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code suffered conviction u/s. 363 of the Indian Penal Code on being tried by Shri Priya Saran, VIth Additional Session Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 1985 on accusation that six days preceding 25th March, 1979, while Asha Kumari (PW-5) was going to house of Tola Ram where she was working as maid servant, the appellant who had developed proximity with her in past, persuaded her to give her company to him on false pretext, and an assurance of marrying her took her to Calcutta. It was alleged that the appellant kept her in a room in Calcutta and from there she was taken to Purnea and where from they came down to Madhepura and while going to Singheshwar Asthan for celebration of marriage ceremony were apprehended by the local police, pursuant to which on behest of Asha Kumari a case was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, police recorded statement of witnesses got the prosecutrix clinically examined by the doctor, visited place of occurrence and eventually laid charge-sheet before the Court. The appellant on eventual commitment of case to the Court of Sessions was put on trial when State examined altogether with witnesses. The defence too examined one witnesses. 2. The defence of the appellant, both before the trial Court and also this Court had been denial of allegations attributed to him and also his false implication and the trial Court finding the prosecution witnesses credible through did not find appellant guilty u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code, there being no compulsion on part of the appellant rendered verdict of guilt u/s. 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years. 3. 3. Contentions raised at baron behalf of the appellant was that though it would appear from the testimony of P.W.s. 2 and 4 that the houses of Jugal Mahto, Surendra Singh and Gurucharan Singh situate in the vicinity of house of Narsingh Mahto, and also adjacent to his house, there was a saw mill where workers in good numbers were employed, none of them were examined by the State who could have been competent witness and on these premises it is urged that the State has examined only interested and partisan witnesses, entirely to the exclusion of independent witness. The other limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that as none of the witnesses including the prosecutrix had been stating before the Court about any compulsion upon the prosecutrix for having kidanpped her, conviction u/s. 363 of the Indian Penal Code for removal of her from the lawful guardianship was not sustainable in law and the last argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that since the prosecution case was launched in the year, 1979 and since when much water had flown over river Gangas and the appellant has suffered ordeal of protracted trial for about 23 years, instead of awarding substantive imprisonment, he may be sentenced to pay fine. Learned Counsel appearing for the State resisted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. 4. The facts are tell a tale, as narrations made by the PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 which are quite coherent, would suggest in certain terms that the appellant who developed proximity with the prosecutrix in the past, having seized opportunity on false pretext and having exercised deceitful means persuaded her to give her company for solemnisation of marriage. The witnesses would state before the Court that the appellant in order to take advantage of the situation of his proximity with the prosecutrix introduced himself before her to be a person of her own caste ostensibly to persuade her to believe prospect of her marriage with him. The evidence of Asha Kumari PW-5 who happens to be the prosecutrix would suggest that the appellant took her to Calcutta and there from she was taken to Purnea and from there to Madhepura and while she was being taken to Singheshwar Asthan for marriage they were apprehended by the police. The evidence of Asha Kumari PW-5 who happens to be the prosecutrix would suggest that the appellant took her to Calcutta and there from she was taken to Purnea and from there to Madhepura and while she was being taken to Singheshwar Asthan for marriage they were apprehended by the police. Admittedly in such a case no one is expected to be ocular witness as such offences are usually committed without knowledge of others and that too in concealment. However, PWs 1, 2 and 4 would state before the Court that Asha Kumari stated to them about appellant having persuaded her to give company to him and took her to various places, though she would state before them about sexual assault on her by the appellant admittedly that was not the narration made earlier before the police also. Non-examination of the doctor and the persons residing in the vicinity of Narsingh Mahto would not affect broad features of the prosecution case, as the explicit case of the prosecution was that while she was going to the house of Tola Ram for work, she was persuaded by appellant in the midway, to give her company to him. The evidences placed on the record do suggest that while father and mother and also the brother had been away from the house in course of their profession, and the victim was going to her masters house, the appellant took her in his company. Though element of compulsion was wanting but evidences do suggest that the appellant, by deceitful means and or false pretext took her in his company for solemnisation of marriage. Though neither the police officer nor the doctor was examined at trial that would not affect bona fide of the prosecution case nor the defence be prejudiced on this count. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was quite in tune with the early version of the prosecution and did not suffer serious infirmity to make them unworthy of credence and I hold that the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court under Sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code was based on meticulous appreciation of evidence placed on the record. It is brought to my notice by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for about 11 months as under trial prisoner. 5. It is brought to my notice by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for about 11 months as under trial prisoner. 5. Regard being had to the fact that the appellant had suffered ordeal of long prosecution for about 23 years and remained in custody for about 11 months, while upholding the finding recorded by the trial Court, finding the appellant guilty u/s. 363 of the Indian Penal Code, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and in addition to that he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 (Rupees One Thousand), in default of which he would suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and with this modification in sentence, the appeal stands dismissed, 6. As Mrs. Nirmaia Kumari, Advocate has been appointed as Amicus Curiae by the Court to assist she shall be paid her fee from the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee.