JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and five years respectively and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code in default of which six months rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nawadah by a judgment dated 6.9.1996 in Sessions of Trial No. 6 of 1996/52 of 1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant is that on 9.8.1995 somebody came and knocked at the door of the Informant at which his wife opened the door and then Appellant is said to have entered his house and taken away his daughter aged about 13-14 years along with some household articles. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom PW-1 is the father of the victim. PW-2 is the mother of the victim whereas PW-3 is the victim herself who has been declared hostile since she did not support part of the prosecution case. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer and PW-6 is the Doctor who examined the injured. 4. From the statement of the victim, PW-3, it appears that the occurrence had taken place in the middle of the night when the Appellant entered the house, dragged her from inside the house and took her away and put her in a bus which was coming from Nawada to Patna. She alleged that she stayed with the Appellant for the next seven days and when she was returning home on the bus, she was recovered by the Police. She stated in her cross-examination that she had been forcibly taken away by the Appellant. From her evidence, it also appears that she had given her statement before the Police one month after her recovery. The victim was opined to be 15-16 years on the date of occurrence 5. On appreciation of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution a reasonable suspicion rises in the mind of the Court as to whether the victim had voluntarily gone with the Appellant since it does not seem probable that a girl of 14-15 years of age would be forcibly taken on a bus and on a rikshaw and detained for seven days without any resistence and without anyone coming to know of it. Moreover, she stated that she was put on a bus for her home by the Appellant which fact further shows that it was probably a case of consent between them. The fact that the Appellant stayed in the same area and was well known to the victim further strengthens this suspicion. 6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1996/52 of 1996 by the Additional Sessions Judge - II, Nawadah, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.