SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J.:–These three appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Sessions Case No. 190 of 1993. The appellant Sanjay Kumar Sharma has been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellants Pankaj Kumar Sharma and Manoj Sharma have been convicted under Section 363/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the night of 7th/8th November, 1982. The First Information Report has been instituted by the father of the victim girl, namely, Sadanand Sharma. According to the case made out in the First Information Report, it is said that when he returned home on 8th morning, he saw crowd of persons outside his house. When he entered his house, he learnt that his daughter Guria was missing from the house. The mother discovered her absence in the morning. She found that the door of the house was open and her daughter was missing. It is also said that the victim girl had taken with her Rs. 2,000/- cash and some other articles. The informant has stated that Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Kumar Sharma and Manoj Kumar Pandit were also missing from the village. He alleges that Lakhan Lal Sharma and Manoj Kumar Sharma always carry illegal arms with them and often threaten the villagers. He alleges that these persons are responsible for eve-teasing in the village. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the investigation in this case commenced and the trial started. 3. The defence is plea of innocence. 4. During the trial, seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of them, PW 3 Balmiki Prasad Gupta, PW 6 Bhim Prasad Mandal and PW 7 Sudhir Kumar Singh were tendered for cross-examination. It appears that the victim girl, namely, Kumari Pushpalata Saroj @ Guria was not medically examined. The Investigating Officer of this case has also not been examined in this case during the trial. 5. PW 1 Sadanand Sharma is the father of the victim girl, namely, Guria. It appears that the victim girl, namely, Kumari Pushpalata Saroj @ Guria was not medically examined. The Investigating Officer of this case has also not been examined in this case during the trial. 5. PW 1 Sadanand Sharma is the father of the victim girl, namely, Guria. He supports the prosecution case. He admits that Sanjay Kumar is his cousin-brother and he lived in the informant’s house for the past three months. The victim girl and the appellant Sanjay Kumar were on visiting terms and are well known to each other. He has neither seen nor has disclosed the source by which he received information that Sanjay Kumar Sharma and others were responsible for the said kidnapping. 6. PW 2 Bishnudeo Jha is a chance witnesses and he has apparently stated that at about 3:30 AM, he was going to the toilet when he saw Guria along with the appellants and two others leaving the village. 7. PW 4 Sushma Devi is the mother of the victim girl. She has stated that she came to know from PW 2 that her daughter and the appellants were seen near the Bandh (embankment) of the village. She claims that her daughter had passed her matriculation examination and has also passed her I.A. examination. The certificates regarding the age of the victim girl, although available with PW 4, were not produced by her to establish the age of the victim girl. 8. PW 5 Kumari Pushpalata Saroj @ Guria is the victim girl herself. According to her, the appellant Sanjay Sharma and three others came to her house just before the dinner time and asked her to accompany them or else she and her father would be killed. PW 5 accordingly left her home early in the morning. She was accompanied by Sanjay Sharma, Manoj, Pankaj and Ashok. Pankaj and Manoj returned to the village after going to some distance. It is also stated that one Ashok was accompanying them who returned from Basraha. She claims that she went to Purnea, then Begusarai and from Bounsi, she took a train to Bokaro, where she went to the house of Sanjay. She does not allege that she was ill-treated or that she was forced into any sort of relationship or for that matter, she was forcibly married to Sanjay. She claims that she went to Purnea, then Begusarai and from Bounsi, she took a train to Bokaro, where she went to the house of Sanjay. She does not allege that she was ill-treated or that she was forced into any sort of relationship or for that matter, she was forcibly married to Sanjay. At present, she has stated that she is married and has a child of about 2½ years. She denies that her family is related to the family of Sanjay or his father. 9. If the case of the witnesses is to be believed, then it would appear that there was no use of force or coercion to compel PW 5 to leave her home. In fact, according to her evidence, the appellant did not even came to her home to take her away, rather they spoke to her sometime in the late evening and thereafter she left her home without informing anybody. The fact that she took her clothes, some ornaments and Rs. 2,000/- from her house would indicate that no force or coercion was used by the appellant Sanjay Kumar Sharma in the whole incident. PW 5 Kumari Pushpalata Saroj @ Guria did not complain or raise any type of protest during her travel to Pashraha, Purnea, Begusarai or at Bokaro, which also indicates that no force or coercion was utilized by the appellant Sanjay Kumar Sharma. As far as the appellants Pankaj Kumar Sharma and Manoj Kumar Sharma are concerned, they had hardly any role to play in the said kidnapping except that they had accompanied the couple to a certain distance. Therefore, it does not appear to be a case of kidnapping by means of force or coercion. 10. The age of the victim girl has not been established by the Prosecution. In the First Information Report, the father has not stated the age of his daughter. It is only before the Trial Court that he has come out with a case that she was about 16-17 years of age. In a similar manner, PW 4 has also stated that her daughter was about 17 years of age. 11. Be that as it may, the appellants Sanjay Kumar Sharma has already remained in custody for 11 months and the appellants Pankaj Kumar Sharma and Manoj Kumar Sharma have remained in custody for 2 months and 23 days. In a similar manner, PW 4 has also stated that her daughter was about 17 years of age. 11. Be that as it may, the appellants Sanjay Kumar Sharma has already remained in custody for 11 months and the appellants Pankaj Kumar Sharma and Manoj Kumar Sharma have remained in custody for 2 months and 23 days. Apart from which, more than three decades have passed since the occurrence has taken place. In the circumstances, this Court alters the sentence to the period already undergone. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 12. In the result, these appeals are dismissed with the alteration in the sentence.