JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 366(A) I.P.C. and under Section 373 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under each count by the learned Sessions Judge, 16 of 1994 by the judgment dated 19.9.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.8.1993 the informant gave a written report before the police stating therein that his minor daughter aged about 11 years was missing from his house since the last 3 months could not be found. He was informed by his nephew Sanjeet that his daughter had been seen watching film in Prakash Talkies and he went there and found his daughter in company of certain unknown women. When his daughter saw him, she came running to the informant and when the police is informed about the two ladies for kidnapping child they were apprehended and the victim disclosed that these two Appellants had kidnapped and had confined and pressed into prostitution. 3. The prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses out of whom P.W. 7 is the doctor who medically examined the victim whereas P.W. 9 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, P.W. 14 is a formal in nature whereas P.W. 15 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 11, 6 and 10 have been tendered and P.W. 1 and 2 are the father and brother respectively of the victim. The rest of the witnesses are merely on the fact of disappearance of the girls, P.W. 8 is the victim but she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly P.W. 11 and 12 have also not supported the prosecution case on the point of recovery of the victim from the cinema hall while in custody of two Appellants and, therefore, were declared hostile. 4. On going through the evidence, I find that the victim who is the sole eye-witness on point of kidnapping or confinement for illegal purposes, herself has not supported the factum of kidnapping by the two Appellants and her subsequent confinement or being pressed into prostitution by them. Hence, this Court has no option but to allow the appeal because the recovery of victim in the company of the Appellants has no meaning in view of there being no further evidence that she had been kidnapped or confined. Hence, this Court has no option but to allow the appeal because the recovery of victim in the company of the Appellants has no meaning in view of there being no further evidence that she had been kidnapped or confined. P.W. 7 who is the doctor, has also merely stated that the victim is about 13 years and that there was no injury found on his person. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1994 by the judgment dated 19.9.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The Appellants are discharged for the liabilities from their respective bail bonds.