JUDGMENT S.A. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7.12.1999 and order of sentence dated 9.12.1999, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1998 by which the appellants have been held guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. 3. The prosecution case is based on a written report of Gurakh Mehta who is the father of the victim girl Ranju Devi. He had narrated that on 7.9.1997 his daughter insisted that they should go for Puja at Singheshwar Asthan. They took a bus to go for Puja. The informant noticed that Kamleshwari Sah and Bhola Sah had also boarded the bus. After performing Puja they were waiting for the bus, when the two appellants approached the informant and gave him Rs. 5/- and asked him to go and have lunch. Thereafter they took away the victim girl. When the informant returned he found that his daughter was missing. He tried to look for her in the temple and around the area where he had left his daughter but could not find her. Thereafter he also tried to contact his family members etc. to find out the whereabouts of his daughter. The informant also visited the home of the appellants but could not get information about her from there. 4. The girl was returned after ten days and she has given her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is Ext. 1 and has been proved by P.W. 11. Her statement discloses that after her father left her, to eat his lunch, he did not return and these two boys ask her to board the train and kept for 10 days in Punjab. She also alleges that they sexually abused her. 5. During trial 11 witnesses have been examined. P.Ws. 1 to 7 and 9 have turned hostile. P.W. 8 is the father of the victim girl. He has stated that he does not know anything about the occurrence and, therefore, he also has been declared hostile. P.W. 9 is the victim girl who supports her case and has stated that she was forcibly taken by the two appellants in a train. P.W. 8 is the father of the victim girl. He has stated that he does not know anything about the occurrence and, therefore, he also has been declared hostile. P.W. 9 is the victim girl who supports her case and has stated that she was forcibly taken by the two appellants in a train. When she protested they threatened to throw her out. It is her case that she was taken to Punjab where she was kept about 10 days and she was abandoned when the appellants came to know that a case has already been instituted against them. 6. The defence in the cross-examination has tried to show that the girl had left her house willingly, it is argued that the story that she was traveling in the train for two days and did not protest or take the help of the co-passengers would indicate that she was a willing party to the hold incident. It has also come in the cross-examination that the victim girl was earlier married but since her husband had not met her, she is now married for the second time. There is some discrepancy whether her first husband is dead or alive but that is not very relevant for the purpose of this case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Doctor and the Investigating Officer have not been examined in this case which prejudices the case of the appellants. It is submitted that apart from the statement of the victim girl who might be protecting her honour, as she was a married woman, no one else has supported the prosecution version. Prima facie there can be no reason to doubt her statement. However, since it is her sole testimony not supported by medical evidence and independent findings of the Investigating Officer or even the father of the victim girl, this Court dismisses this appeal reducing the sentence to period already undergone. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds furnished earlier in this case.