JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the accused Appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Lowang, learned Public Prosecutor for the Stale of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the learned Addl. -District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, in Basar Sessions Case No. 368/2003 convicting the accused Appellant under Section 366 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 (four) years with a fine of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a term of 3 (three) months. The story projected by the prosecution is that one Miss Yabur Mize lodged an Ejahar with the Officer-in-charge, Pasighat Police Station on 23.11.2000 alleging that on 22.11.2000, at about 4.15 PM, the accused Appellant entered into her hostel-room and spoiled her belongings. It was also alleged that the accused had beaten her in front of other hostel inmates and insulted her. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the Pasighat P.S. Case No. 120/2000 was registered under Sections452/323/509/427 I.P.C. The police after completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused Appellant under Sections 366/323/380/427 of I.P.C. On being committed to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed under Sections 366/380 I.P.C. against the accused Appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. The prosecution in order to establish the charges aforementioned, examined, as many as 7 (seven) witnesses, including the informant victim girl and a Medical Officer. The defence examined none. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, convicted and sentenced the accused Appellant, as stated above. 3. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the accused Appellant, submits that: (1) the materials on record do not justify the conviction of the accused Appellant under Section366 I.P.C. inasmuch as the ingredients of offence under Section 366 I.P.C. are absent. (2) the informant victim girl in her First Information Report (Ext.-1) stated that the incident took place on 22.11.2000 at about 1615 hrs. (2) the informant victim girl in her First Information Report (Ext.-1) stated that the incident took place on 22.11.2000 at about 1615 hrs. in the room No. 7 of the Indra Girls' Hostel in J.N. College, Pasighat but in her evidence, she mentioned the place of occurrence as Video Hall near Bus Station, Pasighat, which is contradictory and no conviction can be recorded on the basis of such unreliable and untrustworthy evidence. In support of his submissions, first of all, Mr. Bhuyan, learned Counsel, has drawn the attention of this Court on the contents of the FIR (Ext.-1) and the subsequent complaint dated 23.11.2000 lodged by the informant victim girl with the Officer-in-charge, Pasighat Police Station, with detailed description about the alleged incident. In between the Ext.-1 (FIR) and the other detailed description, it is pointed out by Mr. Bhuyan, learned Counsel, that Ext.-1 is written by the informant victim girl in her own handwriting and as such, this is more authentic inasmuch as it was written and filed by herself and the same must be given more weightage. 4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Counsel, refers to Gabbu v. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 740 wherein the Apex Court held that to constitute an offence under Section 366 I.P.C, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction. It is further held that so far as a charge under Section 366 I.P.C. is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough; it must further be proved that the accused abducted the women with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. 5. 5. I have carefully gone through the Ext.-1 and other materials and evidence on record and found that no evidence has been led by the prosecution to the effect that the accused Appellant kidnapped or abducted the informant victim girl to marry her or with an intent to compel her to marry against her will to any person or she was seduced to illicit intercourse, etc., to bring home the charge under Section 366 I.P.C. The First Information Report (Ext.-1) simply states that on 22.11.2000, at about 1615 hrs. Dr. Tarik Talom (accused Appellant) of Along, entered into her room of the Hostel and spoiled her belongings and that she was beaten up in front of the Hostel boarders. There was no mention in the said First Information Report (FIR) that she was forcefully kidnapped or abducted from the said Hostel. Even in the subsequent complaint lodged by the informant victim girl (PW-1), which was not registered and exhibited, she has not even made a whisper that she was kidnapped or forcefully taken away by the accused Appellant with some ill-motive/intent like giving her to marriage with other person against her will and/or illicit intercourse, etc.... Even in her evidence before the learned trial Court, there is nothing to indicate that the informant victim girl was kidnapped or taken away by force for the aforesaid purposes so as to attract the commission of offence under Section 366 I.P.C. 6. In the second complaint dated 23.11.2000 and in her evidence, the informant victim girl (PW-1) stated that she sustained It is mentioned therein that there are simple old injuries caused by a blunt weapon. The aforementioned Doctor was examined as PW-7. In his deposition, the Doctor deposed that he found all the injuries to be bruises and according to him, the weapon of offence was blunt in nature and the injuries were simple. If it is so, it cannot be believed that the informant victim girl was assaulted all through the way when she was allegedly kidnapped by the accused Appellant inasmuch as the injury found on her person are old ones and simple in nature which would mean that she had received some injuries before the incident. 7. Investigating Officer (PW-6), in his examination-in-chief, categorically stated that he received the complaint on 23.11.2000 from Miss Yabur Mize against Dr. T. Talom alleging that he (Dr. 7. Investigating Officer (PW-6), in his examination-in-chief, categorically stated that he received the complaint on 23.11.2000 from Miss Yabur Mize against Dr. T. Talom alleging that he (Dr. T. Talom) entered into her room in the Hostel, damaged her belongings and that she was also beaten up. It is, therefore, clarified and testified by the I.O. himself that the place of occurrence is in the Girls' Hostel and not in the Video Hall near Bus Station, Pasighat. This would also mean that the PW-1 (informant victim girl) made an allegation by lodging another detailed description/complaint which was not even some injuries on her face and on other parts of her body like head & neck and that she was taken to the hospital by police. In that regard, I have perused the injury report (Ext-3) prepared by one Dr. O. Yomso, which reads as follows: SI. Site of injury Name of Size of Type of Whether Remarks No. injury injury weapon Simple/grievous 1. (Rt) Forehead Bluish Blunt Simple Old 2. (Rt) Check Eye Bluish/noth- Blunt lid ing specific accepted as a First Information Report (FIR) inasmuch as there cannot be 2 (two) First Information Reports for a single incident and as already discussed above, Ext.-1 is the actual First Information Report (FIR). In his cross-examination, PW-6 (I.O.) also categorically stated that witness Sri Kaling Jamoh (PW-2) has not stated clearly that the victim girl was being taken for forceful marriage and/or illicit intercourse but he (I.O.) invoked Section 366 of I.P.C. solely on the basis of the statement of Sri Kaling Jamoh (PW-2). 8. The prosecution examined one Sri Dharmendra Thakur as PW-5. According to PW-5, in the month of November, 2000, he came to Likabali with the accused Appellant on Government duty by Government Vehicle bearing Registration No. AR-08-2241, relating to some Leprosy programme. In the evidence of PW-5, nothing has been stated that the accused Appellant forcefully kidnapped or abducted the informant victim girl for the purposes described in Section 366 of I.P.C. In the cross-examination, PW-5 categorically stated that the informant victim girl was not seen shouting for help while being taken away in the said vehicle except crying and he did not see the accused Appellant using force on the informant victim girl. 9. 9. I have thoroughly examined the allegations made in the First Information Report (Ext.-1) as well as the subsequent detailed explanation/complaint made by the informant victim girl along with the evidence on record. I have also carefully perused the statement of the accused Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Replying to Question No. 1, the accused Appellant in statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, admitted that on 22.11.2000, he called Miss Yabur Mize (his sister-in-law) from the Video Hall, got her seated in his Gypsy but he did not restrain her from escaping as she came willingly. The accused Appellant also stated in the said statement that one of the 2 (two) boys who stopped his vehicle at Sibo Korong, has married the informant victim girl. What was intended by the accused Appellant was to make the informant victim girl (sister-in-law) more serious about her studies instead of wasting her time by watching video films for which he wanted to take her to the college Hostel and report the same to the Principal. This has been supported by none other than the PWs-3 & 4. PW-3, Sri Omi Darin, in his examination-in-chief, stated that informant victim girl was roaming around and enjoying the video film at Bus Station Video Hall, Pasighat, without doing her studies for which he (accused Appellant) was taking her back to the College Hostel. PW-4, Sri Kadum Taloh, also deposed that Miss Yabur Mize (informant victim girl) had been roaming around with boys and enjoying video films, etc., for which, the accused Appellant was proceeding to drop the informant victim girl at her College Hostel and he (accused Appellant) was also telling that he would report the matter to the College Principal. 10. There is enough evidence to suggest that the accused Appellant being her brother-in-law, picked up the informant victim girl from the Video Hall near Bus Station, Pasighat, for corrective measures only without any ill-motive or intent. With the aforesaid evidence on record, I am of the considered view that there is no legally sustainable ground for convicting and sentencing the present accused Appellant, as has been done by the learned trial Court by passing the impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2009, and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. The same, accordingly, is set aside hereby. The accused Appellant Dr. The same, accordingly, is set aside hereby. The accused Appellant Dr. Tarik Talom, stands acquitted in connection with Pasighat P.S. Case No. 120/2000. The bail bond stand discharged. 11. The criminal appeal accordingly stands allowed. 12. LCRs be remitted to the concerned Court below forthwith. Appeal allowed