JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants have been convicted Under Section 366 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 260 of 1994 by a judgment dated 29.9.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 2.7.1993 the accused persons held a meeting at the Darwaja of one Bhogendra Tiwari, where after on 4.7.1993 when the two grand daughters of the informant went to the temple, they allegedly kidnapped the two girls. They were however recovered during search. 3. During trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses on its behalf. Out of whom, P.W.1 is a relative of the informant and has merely stated that he had seen the accused persons holding a meeting on 2.7.1993 and that the two girls had gone to the temple on the fateful day and the Appellants loitered around them. P.W.3 is on the point that he had seen the two girls performing Puja and the accused persons standing nearby. P.W.5 is the alleged eye witness, who has stated that he saw the two girls being kidnapped by the accused persons on the point of revolver. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the two victims, who have stated during evidence that when they had gone to perform Puja, they were forcibly taken away by the accused persons and kept in different places and later the Appellants Sanjiv and Raghav put vermilion on them to show that they were married. The doctor was examined as P.W.4, who has stated that while one of the victims was aged between 17-18 years the other was about 18-19 years. 4. The defence of the Appellant Raghav Tiwary was that in fact he had married one victim on account of love affairs but Appellant Sanjiv Kumar Thakur has not taken this plea even though suggestions have been given to the witnesses that in fact it was a case of love affairs. On behalf of the defence some witnesses were examined, out of whom D.W.2, D.W.3, D.W.4 and D.W.5 have stated that the two victims used to meet the two Appellants, namely, Raghav and Sanjiv and there was no question of any kidnapping. 5. On behalf of the defence some witnesses were examined, out of whom D.W.2, D.W.3, D.W.4 and D.W.5 have stated that the two victims used to meet the two Appellants, namely, Raghav and Sanjiv and there was no question of any kidnapping. 5. From the evidence of the informant (P.W.6), it appears that Appellant Raghav and one of the victims were on talking terms and in fact even if in the First Information Report it has been stated that the Appellant Raghav used to live in the same courtyard and the informant was some way related to him distantly. On fair assessment of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, it appears that the two alleged victims had gone with the Appellants on their own sweet will and the evidence of the two victims does not appear trustworthy. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants on 29.9.1995 by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 260 of 1994 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.