JUDGMENT The appellants assail the judgment and order dated 18.12.1991 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 101/5 of 1990-91 convicting the accused-appellants for offence under Sections 366/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days more. 2. Succinctly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 29.10.1984 during morning hour P.W.6, a minor girl (the victim) alongwith her sister P.W.3 and some of her co-villagers went to Jurabandh market to sell guava and dry fish. At about 11.00 A.M., while they were returning home, on the way, near Dhubapali all the accused-appellants emerged out from a bush and accused Balaram @ Guman Patra forcibly dragged P.W.6 to his house in order to marry her against her will and without consent. In the process an earthen pot containing molasses and brinjals held by the victim fell down and got broken. When the companions of the victim tried to rescue her, the other co-accused pushed them. Hulla raised by P.W.3 did not yield any result. So, she went to her house and informed about this incident to her father P.W.4, who orally reported the incident before the A.S.I. of Tikrapara out post, who reduced it into writing and a case was registered under Sections 366/354/34 of I.P.C. On the next date the victim was rescued from the house of the accused-appellant Balaram @ Guman Patra and was sent to District Headquarters Hospital, Bolangir for ossification test. P.W.2, the doctor after conduct¬ing ossification test on the victim determined her age to be of 16½ to 18 years. In course of investigation the I.O. visited the spot and recovered broken pieces of earthen pot and the molasses and brinjals therefrom and prepared seizure list in respect thereof in presence of P.W.1 and examined the witnesses. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 366/354/34 of I.P.C. against all the accused persons, under which they faced trial. 3. In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons prosecution examined six witnesses in all, as against none by the defence. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 366/354/34 of I.P.C. against all the accused persons, under which they faced trial. 3. In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons prosecution examined six witnesses in all, as against none by the defence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge under Section 354 of I.P.C. against any of the accused persons and as such acquitted all of them thereof, but it held them guilty for the offence under Section 366/34 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them thereunder as mentioned earlier. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence the accused persons (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) have preferred the present appeal. 4. As per the evidence of the radiologist, P.W.2, the age of the alleged victim was 16½ to 18 years on the date of her examination i.e. on 2.11.1984. According to the evidence of P.W.5, the lady Asst. Surgeon, who examined the victim, the age of the latter was 16 to 17 years as appeared from her physique. During cross-examination, P.W.5 stated that the age determined on ossification test may vary by 2 to 3 years on either side. In the decision Bishnudas Behera v. State of Orissa 83 (1997) 445 it has also been held that the age determined on ossification test may vary by two to three years on either side. If two years is added to the age as determined by P.Ws. 2 and 5, then the age of the alleged victim would be more than 18 years at the time of occur¬rence. Accordingly, the appellants cannot be said to have kid¬napped the victim. 5. P.W.6 in her cross-examination stated that appellant Guman Patra did not forcibly drag her to his house. He did not misbehave with her not did he compel her for sexual intercourse. He took her to his house as she was his “SALI” and he had friendly term with her. It transpires from the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 that appellant Guman Patra @ Balaram married the elder sister of the victim. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.4 that the said accused appellant was staying in his house as domesticated son-in-law till two months prior to the date of occurrence. It transpires from the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 that appellant Guman Patra @ Balaram married the elder sister of the victim. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.4 that the said accused appellant was staying in his house as domesticated son-in-law till two months prior to the date of occurrence. So admittedly P.W. 6 is the sister-in-law of the appellant, Guman Patra. When she stated that she went to his house as there was cordial relation¬ship between them, it cannot be said that appellant Guman abducted her to marry. So, ultimately the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. cannot be attracted against any of the appellants. But the trial Court without considering all these aspects, erroneously held the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 366/34 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them thereun¬der, which warrants interference by this Court. Furthermore, the occurrence was alleged to have been taken place on 29.10.1984. The order of conviction and sentence was passed on 18.12.1991. The appellants suffered the ordeal of a prolonged trial of seven years. Again this appeal is pending before this Court since last 15 years. 6. Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 101/5 of 1990-91 are set aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 366/34 I.P.C. Appeal allowed.