JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J.- Heard both the parties. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 18th April, 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sahebganj in connection with Sessions Case No. 228 of 1997 whereby, both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 363/34 & 366N34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo seven years imprisonment under Section 363 I.P.C. and ten years imprisonment under Section 366A I.P.C. and both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, on the basis of fardbeyan (Exb.-3) of the informant Lakhiram Hansda, is that the appellant no.1- Deonandan Prasad and appellant no.2-his wife Anita Kumari had visiting terms with the informant. It is alleged that on 7.6.1996 both the aforesaid persons kidnapped the informant's sisters Mary Hansda, aged about 16 years and Mani Hansda, aged about seven years. On search, the informant came to know that his sisters were seen moving on a bus in the company of two aforesaid appellants and with one Tuntun Kumar, brother-in-law of the aforesaid appellant no. 1. It is further alleged that after sometime, the younger sister of the informant Mani Hansda came back in her house and disclosed that Anita Kumari; the wife of Deo Nandan Prasad sent her back to her house. The elder sister Mary Hansda was still traceless till the filing of the case. It is further stated that Mary Hansda was kidnapped by the aforesaid persons alongwith Tuntun Kumar for the purpose of marriage or illicit intercourse. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, F.I.R was drawn up. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses including one of the victim (P.W.3), the informant (P.W.1), the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), the mother of the victim namely Soma Soren (P.W.2), Mritunjay Kumar Sinha (P.W.4), Munshi Kisku (P.W. 6) & Manik Gorai (P.W. 5) who are the independent witnesses and the father of the victim (P.W. 7). On the other hand, defence has also examined two witnesses. D.W.1 is Taresh Sah and D.W.2 is Naresh Sah. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. P.K. Verma submits that the trial of other co-accused namely Tuntun Kumar was separated from the trial of the present appellants. On the other hand, defence has also examined two witnesses. D.W.1 is Taresh Sah and D.W.2 is Naresh Sah. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. P.K. Verma submits that the trial of other co-accused namely Tuntun Kumar was separated from the trial of the present appellants. The said Tuntun Kumar has been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in S.C. Case No.105 of 2004 by the judgment dated 12th January, 2010. In this connection, the appellants have filed a supplementary affidavit annexing the aforesaid judgment as Annexure-2 in the said affidavit. He has further contended that the co-accused namely Tuntun Kumar has been acquitted from the trial court. In the said trial, P.W.3-Mary Hansda, the victim girl herself has not supported the prosecution case. She has deposed in her statement that her father wanted to solemnize her marriage with one old person and as such, she fled away from her house and got married with Tuntun Kumar. In her cross-examination by the defence, she has made it clear that her date of birth is 16th March, 1977 which is mentioned in her school leaving certificate and as such, she was 19 years on the date of the alleged occurrence. She has further stated in her evidence that she got married with the said co-accused namely Tuntun Kumar and now, they are living happily with their six children who are born from their said wedlock. Considering the statement of the victim girl, the trial court has acquitted the co-accused- Tuntun Kumar. 6. Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has further contended that when the main accused Tuntun Kumar has already been acquitted and the victim girl is now living happily with the said co-accused Tuntun Kumar having six children from their said wedlock, there is no justification to maintain the conviction and sentences of the present appellants. The allegation made in the F.I.R. regarding Mani Hansda, could not constitute any offence against the present appellants and as such, the said girl immediately returned before lodging the F.I.R. and she herself stated that these two appellants sent her back to her house which fact has come in the F.I.R. and has also come in the evidence of P.W. 2 (Mani Hansda) and P.W. 1 (the informant). Therefore, the conviction and sentences passed upon both the appellants are fit to be set aside. 7. Mr. Therefore, the conviction and sentences passed upon both the appellants are fit to be set aside. 7. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed but he has not disputed the facts stated by the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. Considering the aforesaid submissions and also considering the materials available on record and mainly considering the fact that Tuntun Kumar and Mary Hansda are living together happily having six children from their said wedlock, in my opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the aforesaid appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, I set aside the judgment dated 18.4.2001 and 19.4.2001 passed in Sessions Case No. 228 of 1997 by the Sessions Judge, Sahebganj. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and both the appellants as they are on bail are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.