Judgment Malay Kumar Basu, J. This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Burdwan under which he confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court but reduced the sentence from five years' rigorous imprisonment to three years plus a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months as ordered by the learned trial court. 2. Being aggrieved by this order of the appellate court, the accused convict preferred the present revisional application challenging the said order as illegal, improper and unsustainable. 3. The relevant facts leading to the present revision may be summarised as follows:- 4. On 16th April, 1986, Debnarayan Singh of Sripally, P.S. Asansol found that his daughter, Rekha Singh, aged about 15 years was missing. On searches she was not found anywhere in the locality. It was revealed that Rekha had been taken away by her neighbour, Jahangir Khan, aged about 21 years while she was going to the grocery shop to purchase some articles. Coming to know this, the father and the brother of Rekha went to different places where Jahangir might have taken Rekha outside their village, but all in vain. Then Bina Devi Singh, the mother of the missing girl lodged an F.I.R. with the Officer-in-Charge, Asansol P.S. narrating such facts. It was definitely alleged therein that Jahangir Khan had taken away her minor daughter, Rekha, from her custody without their consent. On the basis of this F.I.R. police started investigation and took the victim girl into custody after recovering her and arrested the accused Jahangir and sent the victim girl to the court for her statement under section 164 of the Cr. P.C. to be recorded by the learned Magistrate. The girl was then sent to the Radiologist for ossification test. Prior to that, the girl was sent to the Medical Officer for being medically examined. The accused also sent to the Medical Officer for the same purpose. The Investigating Officer after recording the statement under section 161 of the Cr. P.C. of different witnesses and doing other acts touching the investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The accused also sent to the Medical Officer for the same purpose. The Investigating Officer after recording the statement under section 161 of the Cr. P.C. of different witnesses and doing other acts touching the investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Asansol on the basis of materials as available in the documents under section 170 of the Cr. P.C. framed charge against the accused under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code only. The charge was read over and explained to the accused when he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution; the accused was examined under section 313 of the Cr. P.C., but no evidence on behalf of the defence was adduced. After hearing the arguments, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed the judgment dated 29th September. 1989 finding the accused guilty of an offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting him thereunder and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default for a further period of one month. 6. Being aggrieved by that judgment and order of the learned trial court the accused preferred appeal before the court of sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Burdwan passed the judgment mentioned above. 7. In this revisional application the question which arises for determination is whether the impugned judgment suffers from any illegality or impropriety. It has been argued by Mr. Mallick, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, that in the face of the concurrent findings of fact this court's hand is tied and it cannot question as regards the correctness of the findings of fact made by both the learned courts below concurrently. This legal position is not disputed by Mr. De, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, also. Mr. De points out that there are certain salient features which escaped the consideration of both the learned courts below and hence he has preferred this revision in order to get such errors set right. This legal position is not disputed by Mr. De, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, also. Mr. De points out that there are certain salient features which escaped the consideration of both the learned courts below and hence he has preferred this revision in order to get such errors set right. According to him, the girl made a statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Magistrate, which she has subsequently retracted from while being examined before the court during trial and this fact should be taken into consideration, for it will change the complexion of the prosecution case altogether. Mr. De further submits that in such statement under section 164 of the Cr. P.C. the victim girl flatly gave a blank cheque in favour of the accused by stating that she accompanied the accused voluntarily arid of her own accord because she fell in love with the accused and the accused had no fault in the matter and what is more, she wanted to live with the accused. Mr. De submits that these utterances of the victim girl should not be totally overlooked because these were the natural out-burst without any design and the genuineness and veracity are manifestly established. But I am helpless to observe that under the law such statements cannot be accepted on the face of the substantive evidence of the maker of that statement and we should not be forgetful of the position that the significance of such statements is only for the purpose of providing corroboration or contradiction and as soon as the substantive evidence of the witness is taken, it pales into total insignificance. So, when the victim girl has been examined by the prosecution during the trial, her statement under section 164 of the Cr. P.C. which is only corroborative in nature is of no consequence. We cannot lend any credence to such statements. From the evidence of this victim girl (P.W.6) it is crystal clear that she was taken by the accused forcibly on threat of dire consequences from the custody of her parents and what is conspicuous is that such statement of the victim girl made in the examination-in-chief remained totally un assailed in her cross-examination. From the evidence of this victim girl (P.W.6) it is crystal clear that she was taken by the accused forcibly on threat of dire consequences from the custody of her parents and what is conspicuous is that such statement of the victim girl made in the examination-in-chief remained totally un assailed in her cross-examination. What is more, in her cross-examination it has been taken by the defence itself that she was threatened by the accused with death in case she shouted or tried to attract the attention of other passengers of the busti in which she was taken and while she was being taken, the accuse held her hand forcibly. It is conspicuous to note that such vital statement having been elicited by the defence have not been subjected to further cross-examination, so that they are to be practically taken as admitted. If that be so, this court has nothing to discard the testimony as suffering from any infirmity. 8. As regards the question of age of the victim girl, it has been abundantly proved by the prosecution by means of ample evidence that she was aged about 16 years. The evidence of the mother, father and brother of the victim girl are in corroboration of each other and this has been further corroborated and supported by the report of the Radiologist holding ossification test to the effect that the girl was between the age of 14 and 16 at the relevant point of time. These evidences remained totally unassailed. Therefore, on the question of age also the defence has nothing to take advantage of. 9. Under such circumstances, the ingredients of the evidence of kidnapping as defined under section 361 of the Cr. P.C. having been fully satisfied, there is no denying the fact that the charge under section 363 has been fully substantiated and both the learned courts below correctly came to their findings. 10. The only question with which I am left is whether there is any scope for further reduction of the sentence awarded by the learned courts below. The learned trial court inflicted sentences of rigorous imprisonment for five years while the learned appellate court below reduced it and awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years while keeping the sentence of fine intact. It has been contended by Mr. The learned trial court inflicted sentences of rigorous imprisonment for five years while the learned appellate court below reduced it and awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years while keeping the sentence of fine intact. It has been contended by Mr. De that apart from the observation of the learned appellate court regarding the antecedents and character, etc. of the accused-convict, there are some other mitigating factors which escaped its consideration. He draws my attention to some aspects of the case, namely, that from the evidence it is established that no sexual onslaught was perpetrated on the person of the victim girl, although she was taken by the accused-convict to various places during several days. Nor any physical injury of any sort was inflicted on her body. On the other hand, the victim girl expressed her deep eagerness and desire to go to the company of the accused again. Mr. De contends that the offence was committed in 1986 and thus about 16 years have elapsed and during this long period he had to undergo the hazards arising out of the pending criminal case and also the mental agony and in consideration of all these aspects, he may be treated with a greater amount of sympathy and humanitarianism and his sentence may be further reduced. In support of his contention Mr. De refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Ramakrishnan vs. State of Kerala, reported in A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1428, wherein taking into consideration the fact that the matter was pending for more than 13 years since when the incident took place and further fact that the accused had already undergone a sentence of about four years, the court did not consider it necessary to compel him to suffer from any further period of imprisonment while confirming the order of conviction against him. 11. Considering all the aspects of the matter discussed above and also the legal principles settled by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case including the age of the convict himself at the time of commission of the offence (he was then only 21 years old), I am inclined to hold that ends of justice and good conscience would be met if he is imprisoned for the period already undergone. 12. 12. Accordingly, it is ordered that the order of the learned appellate court below is modified to the extent that the convict-revisional applicant be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period he had already undergone, the sentence of fine remaining intact. The accused shall pay the fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, for further rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 13. The revisional application is thus disposed of. 14. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order be given to the learned advocate for the petitioner as early as possible. 15. Let the L.C.R. be sent down immediately. Revisional application disposed of.