P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against order of conviction of the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1996 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Gunupur (S. C. No. 75 of 1996 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore) and the confirming order with modification of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Jail Crl. Appeal No. 153 of 1997. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 366/376 and 506, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for six years for the offence under S. 366, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, R. I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 for the offence u/s. 376, IPC and R. I. for one year for the offence under S. 508, IPC trial Court also recorded that such sentences to run concurrently. That judgment was delivered by learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Gunupur on 5/05/1997. As against that petitioner preferred the above noted appeal from the Jail. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada heard and disposed of Criminal Appeal as per the impugned judgment dated 12/06/1998. The appellate Court found absence of a case under Section 506, IPC and acquitted the petitioner from the said charge but maintained the order of conviction and sentence with respect to the offence under Section 366 and 376, IPC. Being aggrieved by that petitioner preferred this revision from the Jail. ( 2 ) BESIDES advancing oral argument, learned counsel for the appellant submits a written note. ( 3 ) THE case involves a rare instance of a maternal uncle committing rape of his neice i. e. sister's daughter. In the case at hand that is the substance of the prosecution case. Sarita Naik, the prosecutrix (P. W. 10) is one of the five daughters in her family. The family also consists of two sons. After the death of her father the family having rendered destitute and she being a plucked Matric was in search of a job to support the family. Petitioner who is her maternal uncle is also the adjacent neighbour inasmuch as, according to the prosecution, he has been provided with a room and verandah from the residential premises belonging to the family of the prosecutrix. Petitioner who is her maternal uncle is also the adjacent neighbour inasmuch as, according to the prosecution, he has been provided with a room and verandah from the residential premises belonging to the family of the prosecutrix. By the date of occurrence, as it revealed from the evidence on record, when the prosecutrix was aged about 18 to 19 years, the accused-petitioner was aged about 52 years. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, when P. W. 10 was in search of a job accused proposed for securing a job to her and asked her to come with him to village Karabandha for appearing in an interview for a job in a voluntary organization and with that pretext he took P. W. 10 to the occurrence village i. e. Karabandha on 27-10-1995. The accused and P. W. 10 took shelter in the house of Mundruka Wanchu (P. W. 5 ). Accused asked P. W. 5 to provide a job for P. W. 10 in his (P. W. 5's) house. In the night of 27-10-1995. P. W. 10 and the accused were accommodated in a room and while P. W. 10 was in slumber, accused tied a cloth and gaged her mouth and thereafter forcibly committed sexual intercourse. The lust was not lost and therefore petitioner repeated that crime again on 28-10-1995 in the same manner and at the same place. On 29-10-1995 he left the place with the plea to return to take her back and did not return thereafter. Admittedly, no job was arranged for her. It is the P. W. 5 who suspected some foul play and after the departure of the accused when made query with P. W. 10, that she cried, could not tell anything verbally but stated the incident in writing (Ext. 6 ). Thereafter, on 31-10-1995, with the kindness and co-operation of P. W. 5, she was escorted to her village by P. W. 20 Pradeep Digal. On return to her house P. W. 10 narrated the incident to her sister and mother and thereafter there was a Panchayat in the village in the same evening and on the advice of Bhadraloks FIR was lodged and law was set into motion. After a routine investigation charge-sheet was placed, accused was arrested and after commitment accused faced the aforesaid trial. After a routine investigation charge-sheet was placed, accused was arrested and after commitment accused faced the aforesaid trial. Besides the aforesaid three witnesses, the Doctors, the seizure witnesses, the Police Officers and the mother of the Prosecutrix so also the Panch, members of the village Panchayat were examined as witnesses. In all 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution besides exhibiting 22 documents and 11 M. Os. i. e. the garments and clothings. ( 5 ) IN course of trial, while denying to the charge accused took the plea of complete denial and also advanced a contention that because of refusal by him to a marriage proposal of his son with a sister of the prosecutrix that such a false case has been foisted. No defence witness was examined by the petitioner in support of that plea. ( 6 ) ON assessment of evidence on record, the trial Court found that the evidence of P. W. 10 regarding her visit to village Karadabandha at the instance of the accused and staying in the house of P. W. 5 and staying together in a single room in the said two nights are proved on record as per the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 5 and also from the evidence of her mother Sutaya Nayak (P. W. 11), brother-in-law (sister's husband) Kishore Nayak (P. W. 9) and P. W. 20 who escorted her to her native village. The trial Court also recorded the finding that the evidence of P. W. 10, sufficiently proves that sexual intercourse was done by the accused without her consent and with use of force in the nights of 27th and 28/10/1995. The trial Court also recorded that the threatening given at and after the intercourse was proved from the evidence and subsequent conduct of P. W. 10. On the aforesaid analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Court recorded the conviction in the aforesaid manner for the offences under Sections 366/376/506, IPC. After reap-preciating the evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada found that a case of criminal intimidation was not proved. Accordingly, he acquitted the accused from the conviction u/s. 506, IPC. Learned Addl. On the aforesaid analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Court recorded the conviction in the aforesaid manner for the offences under Sections 366/376/506, IPC. After reap-preciating the evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada found that a case of criminal intimidation was not proved. Accordingly, he acquitted the accused from the conviction u/s. 506, IPC. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the contention of the accused that there was no case of kidnapping as punishable u/s. 366, IPC in view of the fact that P. W. 10 was above 18 years of age by the date of occurrence and she left the house and proceeded to village Karadabandha voluntarily with the accused and therefore, there was no question of kidnapping or abduction. In that context, referring to the evidence on record and the circumstances emerging therefrom learned Addl. Sessions Judge found a case of abduction on the assumption that the accused induced P. W. 10 to come with him to get a job though that was the pretext applied to fulfil the intention to commit sexual intercourse with her. Accordingly, he held that the offence u/s. 366, IPC is made out. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge also recorded the finding that the findings of the trial Court relating to the offence under Section 376, IPC is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, while concurring with the order of conviction and sentence for the offence u/s. 366 and 376, IPC learned Addl. Sessions Judge set aside the order of conviction under Section 506, IPC. ( 7 ) IN course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner argues that on a proper reading of the evidence on record there can be no two opinions that the offence under S. 366, IPC has not been made out. He argues that there was no evidence either directly or indirectly to legally prove that accused enticed or abducted P. W. 10 with an intention to make sexual intercourse forcibly and illegally. Learned Standing Counsel, however, resist to that argument and supports the finding recorded by the appellate Court. He argues that there was no evidence either directly or indirectly to legally prove that accused enticed or abducted P. W. 10 with an intention to make sexual intercourse forcibly and illegally. Learned Standing Counsel, however, resist to that argument and supports the finding recorded by the appellate Court. ( 8 ) IT is the settled principle of law that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction is not to interfere with the findings on fact unless it is of the opinion, for reasons to be recorded, that the relevant factual finding is not based on evidence on record or such finding is based on wrong reading of evidence or misinterpretation of evidence besides not properly considering the requirement of law in support of such findings. In that context the revisional Court must bear in mind that if appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is not unreasonable or infested with perversity then the factual finding recorded by the lower Courts shall not be disturbed merely because the revisional Court gathered another impression or opinion on reading such evidence, keeping the above parameter and mandate of law in mind the evidence on record is perused in this case to find if there is any substance in the argument advanced by the petitioner regarding non-existing of evidence to prove the charge under S. 366, IPC. ( 9 ) SECTION 366, IPC provides punishment for the offence of kidnapping or abducting a woman with the intention that she may be compelled to marry against her will or she may be forced or seduced to illicit inter course. The term kidnapping has been defined in Section 359 read with S. 361, IPC. So far as the present case is concerned, prosecution has not advanced a case of kidnapping. On the other hand prosecution sought for petitioners conviction under S. 366, IPC for abducting by use of deceitful means to induce her to go with the petitioner who had adopted that deceitful inducement with the intention to force her for illicit intercourse. ( 10 ) PROSECUTION contended that the act of the accused in assuring P. W. 10 for providing a job to her was the deceituful mean which was adopted to induce her to move from her house to village Karadabandha so as to fulfill his intention to force a sexual intercourse with her. ( 10 ) PROSECUTION contended that the act of the accused in assuring P. W. 10 for providing a job to her was the deceituful mean which was adopted to induce her to move from her house to village Karadabandha so as to fulfill his intention to force a sexual intercourse with her. In the impugned judgment of the trial Court that aspect was neither clearly nor categorically noted in support of the finding recorded for the conviction under S. 366, IPC, But learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepting the prosecution's case in that manner regarding the offence of abduction, referred to and relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 10, 5 and 11 and confirmed to the order of conviction under Section 366, IPC. In that respect, the evidence of P. W. No. 10 is completely silent about attributing such a conduct on the accused. In her evidence she has simply stated that because of her illness she was reluctant to go but her mother arranged a sum of Rs. 30. 00 by selling a 'thali' (plate) and thereafter they proceeded on the persuation of the petitioner and went to the house of P. W. No. 5 where petitioner introduced P. W. No. 5 as the Director of Jeevan Dhara (a N. G. O.) though she later on came to know that P. W. 5 is not such a Director. P. W. No. 5 on the other hand has stated in his evidence that accused came with P. W. No. 10 and stated about search for a job for her and requested him (P. W. No. 5) to keep her in his (P. W. 5's) house to assist to his wife. It appears from Ext. 6 that petitioner made such a statement while intimating the P. W. No. 10 to go to Karadabandha. Thereafter prosecution has lead the conduct of the accused through the evidence of P. W. No. 5 that on 29-10-1995, he left the village with assurance to come back on 31-10-1995 but did not return. On a total reading of the aforesaid evidence, there does not appear to be any convincing reason to make an unfailing presumption that the aforesaid conduct amounted to the petitioner having the intention to abduct P. W. No. 10 with a view to commit sexual inter course with her. On a total reading of the aforesaid evidence, there does not appear to be any convincing reason to make an unfailing presumption that the aforesaid conduct amounted to the petitioner having the intention to abduct P. W. No. 10 with a view to commit sexual inter course with her. On the other hand, the evidence on record i. e. the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 5 goes to show that it is the situation of a grown up girl like P. W. No. 10 being accommodated in the same room and on the same bed to spend the nights on 27th and 28/10/1995. Thus, as it appears petitioner could not resist the temptation and impulses and committed beastly act of rape on his niece. Under such circumstance, simply because it is alleged that petitioner committed rape, that does not necessarily mean that P. W. No. 10 was abducted by the petitioner. Under such circumstance, this Court finds that in the absence of any evidence to prove the offence of abduction, the Courts below have drawn such an inference merely on the basis of surmises and presumptions because the petitioner ravished P. W. No. 10. It is the settled principle of law that a conviction cannot be maintained on the basis of surmises and presumptions. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the order of conviction under S. 366, IPC. ( 11 ) SO far as the offence under Section 376, IPC is concerned, the evidence of P. W. No. 10 and the circumstantial evidence of P. W. No. 5 and other witnesses clinchingly proves the allegation of rape against the petitioner. A detailed deliberations of the evidence on record will amount to mere repetition of the reasonings as recorded by the appellate Court. A detailed deliberations of the evidence on record will amount to mere repetition of the reasonings as recorded by the appellate Court. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referring to the cases of Siba Prasad Mohanty v. State of Orissa, 2001 (1) OLR 323 , Manas Ranjan Thakur v. State 2001 (1) OLR 334 and Hemanta Kumar Sahu v. State of Orissa, 2001 (1) OLR 596 , argues that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix should not be relied on to warrant a conviction against the petitioner for the offence under S. 376, IPC on perusal of the citations, this Court finds that in each of such cases, learned Judge found the evidence of the post-occurrence witnesses and medical evidence, discrepant and inconsistent with the evidence of the prosecutrix. Learned Judge also found the evidence of the prosecutrix untrustworthy and according interfered with the order of conviction under Section 376, IPC. Such is not the case here. The evidence of P. W. No. 10 stands corroborated at each at age by the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses and more particularly by the evidence of P. W. No. 5 for the incidents dated 27th and 28/10/1995. On a careful perusal of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the credibility of the prosecution evidence on the allegation of rape is trustworthy and reliable. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere with the order of conviction for the offence under S. 376, IPC is not sustainable. Accordingly, that argument is rejected and the petitioner's conviction under Section 376 is maintained. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also argues that keeping in view the advanced age of the petitioner the quantum of sentence may be reduced. That contention also is found to be devoid of merit inasmuch as the petitioner completely belied the trust of a niece and committed rape on his sister's daughter in a beastly manner. Nonetheless the Courts below have already shown leniency by not imposing a higher sentence. No further leniency is required in that respect. Thus, the sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for the offence under Section 376, IPC is maintained. ( 14 ) IN the result, the conviction under Section 366, IPC is set aside whereas the conviction under Section 376, IPC is maintained along with its sentence. No further leniency is required in that respect. Thus, the sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for the offence under Section 376, IPC is maintained. ( 14 ) IN the result, the conviction under Section 366, IPC is set aside whereas the conviction under Section 376, IPC is maintained along with its sentence. The Jail Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed in part. Order accordingly.