JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted Under Section 366A I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six years as also a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of which further R.I. for six months by a judgment dated 16.12.1996 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1355 of 1994. 2. The case of the informant Natwar Singh is that while he was living in rented premises, the Appellant allegedly kidnapped his daughter, namely, Reeta Kumari on 25.3.1991 at about 7 P.M., who was later recovered. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are hearsay witnesses, whereas P.W.3 is the informant and P.W.4 is his wife, but neither of them have seen the Appellant kidnapping the girl. P.W.5 is the victim, who stated that she had gone with the Appellant out of her own sweet will. The doctor P.W.6 did not find any sign of rape on the person of the victim and she found the victim aged about 15-16 years, whereas P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer but he is more or less formal in nature. 4. On going through the evidence of the victim, I find that she has stated that she had left with the Appellant out of her own sweet will. Thus in the background of the assessment of the age by the doctor that she was around 14-18 years and therefore had achieved the age of consent giving benefit of doubt to the Appellant, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant on 16.12.1996 by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1355 of 1994 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.