Judgment :- Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 16.04.2010 and 19.04.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 3(7) of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 8(1) of 2007 thereby convicting the appellant Nantu Chakraborty alias Gopal for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-with default clause. The appellant herein along with two others were arrayed to face charge under Section 363/366/120B of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and, as a result, trial commenced against them. The co-accused persons were, however, found not guilty and were acquitted from the charges. The present appellant was found guilty of offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, his conviction and sentence was recorded by the judgment, which is impugned in this appeal. Succinctly, the case before the learned Trial Court was that on 01.11.2011, in between 10.30 to 11.00 a.m., Chaitali Kar, aged about 15 years, was kidnapped by the appellant while she was going to school. The learned Trial Court recorded evidence of as many as 12 witnesses including the victim Chaitali. Upon consideration of the evidence on record together with the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Court recorded the order of conviction and sentence. The only question is to be considered in this appeal by this Court whether any ingredient of offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code was present while the alleged incident had taken place or not. It is admitted position that the victim Chaitali was aged about 15 years at the relevant point of time. This is also admitted position that she was having love affairs with the appellant and that she, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mentioned clearly that she had written a letter to the appellant to the effect that in case the appellant fails to take her away on 1st November, 2011 and marry her, she would commit suicide. She, as the P.W. 8, stated categorically before the learned Trial Court that on 1st November, 2011 she and Nantu Chakraborty together went to the sister’s house of Nantu, their marriage had taken place in a temple and, thereafter, they stayed in the sister’s house of Nantu for a couple of weeks as husband and wife before she was taken away by her parents. She stated also in her examination-in-chief as P.W. 8 that she had no grievance against the appellant. All the witnesses examined before the learned Trial Court categorically stated that there was love affair between the victim and Nantu and their marriage had taken place. The P.W. 1, the mother of the victim, stated also in her cross-examination that she declared in writing that she would withdraw the case as the dispute was settled and she was arranging for marriage of Chaitali elsewhere and that she had no complain against the appellant any further. It also appears from the evidence of the P.W. 3 that the victim herself went away with the appellant. The P.W. 5, another witness, stated that he was aware of the fact of fleeing away of Chaitali and Nantu. The P.W. 7, the father of Chaitali, admitted that an undertaking was made in writing jointly by himself and his wife, (P.W. 1), which was marked Exbt. 4. The Exbt. 5, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, discloses clearly that Chaitali herself induced the appellant to take her away for marriage with a threatening that in case of failure to do so, she would commit suicide. In the fact situation above, the appellant had to obey the direction of his fiance, i.e., the victim. They together went to the house of the sister of the appellant, performed their marriage in a temple and resided there as husband and wife for a couple of weeks. The offence of kidnapping has been defined in Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code and the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship has been defined in Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the victim Chaitali, being a minor was taken away or kidnapped from her lawful guardianship attracting the definition of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: “Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the victim Chaitali, being a minor was taken away or kidnapped from her lawful guardianship attracting the definition of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: “Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. – whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.” On careful reading of the language used in Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code it can well be understood that the main ingredient of the offence is to “take or entice out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship”. Therefore, in order to convict an accused under Section 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecution must prove that there was “taking away” or “enticement” on the part of the accused. Until and unless this essential ingredient is established, the offence of kidnapping cannot be said to have been committed whether the victim was a minor or not. Mrs. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that in this case there was no “enticement” or “taking away” of the victim by the appellant. No such evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court did not find any such evidence, but recorded conviction simply because the victim was a minor. The Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code attracts only when kidnapping of a minor from lawful guardianship. This is one of the ingredients of the offence besides the essential ingredients of “taking away” or “enticement” out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship without consent of the guardian. According to Mrs. Roy, that essential ingredient has not been established at all in the instant case. Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of West Bengal, contended that the victim was a minor. Naturally, question of consent on her part does not arise. The learned Trial Court, he contended, considered that aspect and recorded conviction. Therefore, the judgment impugned does not require to be upset. Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of West Bengal, contended that the victim was a minor. Naturally, question of consent on her part does not arise. The learned Trial Court, he contended, considered that aspect and recorded conviction. Therefore, the judgment impugned does not require to be upset. At the Bar the following decisions have been referred to: (1) Satish Kumar vs. State (Delhi), reported in 1987(3) Crimes 597; (2) Baldev Singh vs. The State of West Bengal, reported in 1984(1) (Crimes) 936; (3) Lalta Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1979 Cri, L.J. 867 (4) S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, reported in (1965) 1 S.C.R. 243 ; (5) Ravi Kumar v. State, reported in (2005)II DMC 731 (DB); (6) Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in 2007 CRI. L.J. (NOC) 675 (P & H); and (7) Laddi @ Balwinder Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in 2012 (3) Crimes 3 (P & H). It has already been stated that there was no force or taking away or enticement on the victim from the side of the appellant. The appellant was convicted simply because the victim was 15 years old at the relevant point of time. The learned Trial Court did not consider as to whether the victim was taken away or enticed or the appellant was actually threatened by the victim to take her out of her lawful guardians. The fact that the victim was 15 years old at the relevant point of time has not been denied. That means she had already reached the age of discretion. She was having love affairs with the appellant. She had gone with the appellant on her own without being allured, enticed or threatened. The Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Varadarajan (supra) discussed the meaning of “take out of keeping of the lawful guardian” elaborately. The Hon’ble Court had taken a view that where a minor girl, alleged to be taken away by the accused person, had left her father’s protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing and voluntarily joined the accused, it cannot be said that the accused had taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian within the meaning of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. This principles of law was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satish Kumar (supra). It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a girl of age of discretion and on verge of attaining maturity willingly first roaming about with accused for several hours at several placed and then willingly accompanying him to another place without informing her parents with whom she was living and returning next day, the accused cannot be held guilty of committing offence of kidnapping. In Lalta Prasad (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that girl found to have gone with the accused of her free will and with consent of her mother and when there was no proof that she was taken by accused to seduce her to illicit intercourse, the accused cannot be held a guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. In Ravi Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court found that there was no taking or enticing away and, therefore, essential ingredients of offence of kidnapping was missed. The victim reached age of discretion, at her own volition accompanied the accused and got married with him and was desirous of living with him, no offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is said to have been committed by the accused. While coming to this decision, the Hon’ble Division bench of the Delhi High Court referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Varadarajan (supra) In Ajit Singh (supra) the Punjab and Haryana High Court also taken a view that when the minor girl was in love with the accused and she herself forced to accompany the accused to another place, it cannot be said that accused allured, enticed or threatened the victim and thereby committed any offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. In Laddi @ Balwinder Kumar (supra), it was held by the Hon’ble judge of the Punjab And Haryana High Court that even if the girl was 17 years of age, she herself having left her house and having solemnized marriage, no offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out. The expressions “taking” and “enticement” independently have two different connotations. Neither of the expression attracts the case when girl of her own accord goes out of the custody of her guardian. The expressions “taking” and “enticement” independently have two different connotations. Neither of the expression attracts the case when girl of her own accord goes out of the custody of her guardian. The victim, in the instant case, wrote letter to the accused, which she had admitted while making statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The appellant was threatened by that letter that in case he failed to take her away and marry her, she would commit suicide. The appellant, in a compelling circumstances, accompanied the girl to his sister’s house and, thereafter, married her in a temple and spent there for a couple of weeks as husband and wife. That being the fact, it can hardly be said that the essential ingredients, i.e., “taking” or “enticement” on the part of the appellant was present and, therefore, it can hardly be said that he committed any offence under Section 361 of the Indian Penal code. I find that the learned Trial Court did not consider the case from that angle and passed judgment impugned because of the minor age of the victim girl, who, in fact, was not willing even to proceed with the case against the appellant and had married to another person subsequently. Taking everything into consideration, this Court finds that no offence of kidnapping was established against the appellant. As such, he is liable to be acquitted from the charges. The judgment impugned, therefore, is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, appeal succeeds. The appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. He be set at liberty at once and discharged from bail bond, if any. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs.