ORDER 1. The appellant was convicted by the Court of Session for offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 368 read with Section 34 IPC. The other three accused were, however, acquitted. It cannot be disputed and has not been rightly questioned by learned State counsel that the conviction could only be under the aforesaid substantive provisions and not under Section 34 IPC. The appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine for offence under Section 363, IO years rigorous imprisonment and fine for offence under Section 366-A and rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine for offence under Section 368. The conviction on all the three counts was upheld by the High Court in the appeal. The sentence was, however, reduced for offence under Section 366-A to 6 years rigorous imprisonment and for offences under Sections 363 and 368 rigorous imprisonment to 5 years each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The fines imposed by the Court of Session were also set aside by the High Court. The appellant, aggrieved from the impugned judgment of the High Court, has approached this Court on leave having been granted. While granting leave, notice of enhancement of sentence has also been issued to the appellant. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant went to the school of PW 6 Priyadarshani Kumari on 26-3-1998. She was a student of 8th standard. The appellant knew PW 6 as his parents were working for the parents of PW 6. The appellant represented to the teacher PW 8 that he had been sent by the father of PW 6 to get her from the school since her grandfather was seriously ill. The appellant was about 19 years old at that time. On such representation being made, PW 8 permitted PW 6 to accompany the appellant. PW 6 gave her books to a co-student PW 3 for being delivered at her house. She was taken by him to a bus-stand stating that her grandfather had been taken from Samastipur to a hospital in Rosera. From Rosera she was taken on another bus for going to Siliguri and ultimately to Dhubri in Assam where the brother of the appellant resided along with his family. PW 6 was recovered on 1-4-1998 from the house of the brother of the appellant. From Rosera she was taken on another bus for going to Siliguri and ultimately to Dhubri in Assam where the brother of the appellant resided along with his family. PW 6 was recovered on 1-4-1998 from the house of the brother of the appellant. The appellant was found guilty for the offences above-indicated and sentenced by the trial court, which was reduced by the High Court, in the manner stated above. 3. There is no serious dispute about the age of PW 6. She was about 14 years of age at the relevant time. In this background, first we would consider the charge against the appellant for offence under Section 366-A. The said provision provides that whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with the intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. We have gone through the evidence of PW 6 and other witnesses as also the judgment under appeal. It is evident that the ingredients of Section 366-A have not been proved against the appellant. There is no evidence at all to establish that PW 6 was induced to go to any place with the intent that she may be or likely to be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. On the contrary, the evidence shows that PW 6 was well treated at the house of the brother of the appellant. The medical evidence also does not show any kind of sexual harassment or any attempt or likelihood in that direction. In fact, there is no such finding against the appellant. In view of this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State has fairly and rightly not supported the impugned judgment insofar as it upholds the offence under Section 366-A IPC. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court confirming that of the Court of Session in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 366-A is set aside. The said charge has not been proved against the appellant. He is accordingly acquitted of offence under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court confirming that of the Court of Session in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 366-A is set aside. The said charge has not been proved against the appellant. He is accordingly acquitted of offence under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Reverting now to the offences under Section 363 and Section 368 IPC, it was contended by learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant that the evidence shows that PW 6 had on her own decided to abandon her parents and accompany the appellant. It is pointed out that they travelled for three days and covered a long distance from Samastipur in the State of Bihar and ultimately reached Dhubri in Assam after travelling through West Bengal and changing a number of buses. All through the journey, it is submitted that there were various persons in the bus. It may be so but at the same time we cannot ignore the statement of PW 6 that on realising that she was not being taken to the hospital but elsewhere, she asked the appellant about it but he gave her a threat and on that account she did not raise any alarm. We, under these circumstances, are unable to accept the contention that on this count the offence of kidnapping against the appellant has not been made out. Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, provides, whoever takes or entices any minor under eighteen years of age in case of a female, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor from lawful guardianship. Explanation to Section 361 provides that the words "lawful guardian" include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. From the testimony of PW 3, PW 6 and PW 8, the Court of Session and the High Court have reached a finding of fact that the appellant took away PW 6 from her school in the manner the prosecution alleges. The school had been lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of PW 6 and the appellant took her from that custody. We see no reason to disturb the findings of fact reached by two courts on appreciation of evidence. The school had been lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of PW 6 and the appellant took her from that custody. We see no reason to disturb the findings of fact reached by two courts on appreciation of evidence. The offence of kidnapping was complete when the appellant took away PW 6 from the school. The fact that the appellant gave food to PW 6 on the way to Assam or she was fairly well looked after in Assam will have no relevance insofar as the commission of offence of kidnapping is concerned. We may note that the case sought to be put forth by the appellant was that the two of them were in love. In cross-examination of PW 6 some letters were sought to be put to her as also a diary. These documents were, however, denied by PW 6. Further, it cannot be ignored that she was a minor and could not be taken away from the custody of the school in the manner the appellant is found to have taken her away. 5. A decision of this Court in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras on the interpretation of the expression "takes" or "entices" in Section 361 IPC, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is of no help in the present case having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In Varadarajan easel this Court observed that it has to be borne in mind that there is distinction in taking and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous. The Court, however, made it clear that it was examining a case that was under consideration where the allegation was that the minor was taken away by the accused and she left her fathers protection knowing and having the capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily. In that case it had been established that the minor girl was a student of 2nd year of BSc in a college and a day earlier to the date of incident she was found by her elder sister when she was talking with the accused on telephone. She told her elder sister that she wanted to marry the accused. In that case it had been established that the minor girl was a student of 2nd year of BSc in a college and a day earlier to the date of incident she was found by her elder sister when she was talking with the accused on telephone. She told her elder sister that she wanted to marry the accused. The next day she left the house on her own; telephoned the accused and asked him to meet at a certain point and then went with the accused. Having regard to these facts, it was held that the case does not come within the expression "taking" in Section 361 as there is distinction between the term "taking" and allowing the minor to accompany a person. That was a case where the minor girl was allowed to accompany the accused. 6. The facts of the present case as established and noticed earlier are altogether different where the appellant took PW 6 from the school in the manner stated above. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we would maintain the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 363 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Reverting to the question of sentence not only PW 6 as per her own statement was looked after well at the house of the brother of the appellant and there was no sexual harassment or assault on her but the prosecution also abandoned its case that any letter was got written from PW 6 demanding any amount from the father of PW 6. Having regard to these special features and the age of the appellant. We feel that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence for the two aforesaid offences is reduced from 5 years to 3 years as it seems that the appellant is already in custody for a period of more than three years. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part and sentence reduced as above. In case the appellant has undergone sentence of three years, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The notice of enhancement is discharged.