JUDGMENT : Akhilesh Chandra, J. The solitary appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 366. IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and pay fine of Rs.2.000/- in default R.I. for two years as awarded on 8th July, 1999 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge. East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 488 of 1996/72 of 1996 arising out of Chiraiya I.S. Case No. 31 of 1996. 2. The prosecution has based its case on the fardbeyan (Ext-2) of Sitaram Sah. PW 7 recorded on 2.6.1996 at 17 hours by PW 9 Sri D.K. Singh. Inspector Sikarganj P.S in presence of Awadhesh Kumar is that on 25th May. 1996 in early hours i.e. about 3 a.m. the family found grand married daughter of the informant missing initially after natural wait and search active attempts were made to locate her at near by possible places/localities. But in the evening when the informant came back could learn from co-villager Lakshmi Sah PW 3 that girl was seen by the witness with the appellant in a Muzaffarpur bound Bus known as Sheet Basant at originating village Dhanka. Some time thereafter one Meghu Prasad. PW 5 confirming such information claimed to see both at Muzaffarpur Bus stand purchasing LICHI. It is further stated that the girl was around 15 years of age married a year before remarriage (gauna) though fixed but was yet to be performed meanwhile she has been enticed away with ulterior motive by the appellant, who was at normal visiting and talking terms. She also has taken ornaments with her. A week delay in lodging case was explained as of period consumed in search. 3. The police after institution of the case completing investigation and on return of the victim submitted charge-sheet and to substantiate the prosecution has examined altogether 11 witnesses besides following documentary evidence - Ext. 1- Signature of Sita Ram Ssah on fardbeyan. Ext. 2- Fardbeyan. Ext. 3- Formal F.I.R. Ext. 4- Carbon copy of Medical report. Ext. 1/1- Signature of Dr. Jashbir Sharan on carbon copy of medical report and the defence produced one witness and following documentary evidence :- Ext. A to A/4- Five letters written by Suman to Suraj. Ext. B-C. C. of complaint petition in Case No. 206 C/96 (Enquiry No. 55/96). Ext. C to C/2- C.C. of depositions namely Amaldeo Sah. Ext. 1/1- Signature of Dr. Jashbir Sharan on carbon copy of medical report and the defence produced one witness and following documentary evidence :- Ext. A to A/4- Five letters written by Suman to Suraj. Ext. B-C. C. of complaint petition in Case No. 206 C/96 (Enquiry No. 55/96). Ext. C to C/2- C.C. of depositions namely Amaldeo Sah. Ram Nath Prasad and Ram Prabesh Prasad. Ext. D-C.C. of judgment in Case No.206 C/96 (Tr. No. 713/98.) 4. In due course the appellant tried for the offence under Sections 366-A and 366. IPC ultimately taking into consideration the materials available the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant only for the offence under Section 366, IPC giving rise to this appeal. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant who relied upon the following judgment, namely. (1) ( 2003 1 SCC 605 . Jinish Lal Sah v. State of Bihar; (2) (2002) 7 SCC 721 . Rajendra @ Raju v. State of Maharashtra; (3) (1994) 1 SCC 468 . State of Karnataka v. Suresh babu Pukraj Porral; (4) (1979) 4 SCC 336 , Chhotelal & Anr. v. State of Hariyana; (5) 1970 (3) SCC 211 . Ram Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and (6) 2004 (5) SCC 120 . Maniram Hazarika v. State of Assam that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge against the appellant. There is nothing to show at any point of time that the victim was taken away without her wilful consent on any sort of enticement rather she having continued good relationship with the appellant willfully and voluntarily accompanied him. Further at no point of time she was ever exploited. On the other hand, learned counsel representing informant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor both tried to support findings of the Court below on the ground mentioned in the judgment and further submitted that inspite of knowing fully well the victim had already been married with another the appellant. inspite of being matured and married person for several years developed intimacy with the victim and on the pretext of marrying with her enticed away and kept her under his control for more than a month resulting into her desertion by the husband and in-laws, ultimately forced her to lead deserted life. 6. inspite of being matured and married person for several years developed intimacy with the victim and on the pretext of marrying with her enticed away and kept her under his control for more than a month resulting into her desertion by the husband and in-laws, ultimately forced her to lead deserted life. 6. Out of eleven prosecution witnesses, PW 1 Brij Kishore Prasad is father of the victim and son of the informant. He has stated the prosecution version with only addition in examination-in-chief that she was subsequently examined by the doctor. During cross-examination he admits the case instituted by his son-in-law, i.e. husband of the victim against her and family members and stated in details the places where the victim was searched before instituting the case. Almost similar is the position of PW 2 Awadhesh Kumar, another son of the informant who apart from what his brother PW 1 has stated added in cross-examination that earlier she had never left the house in such a way and the appellant a married fellow and co-villager used to visit the shop at the door of the informant's house. PW 4 Dropadi Devi, mother of the informant. PW 6 Jugal Kishore Prasad, another son of the informant are also on similar points having no direct information about manner and time of leaving the house by the victim, but getting all informations about her being in the company of the appellant received from PW 3 and PW 5. All of them are also consistent about visits of the appellant at the shop. The informant (PW 7) has also stated almost same thing. Thus, the family members have said nothing more what they could learn from PWs 3and 5 and had experienced due to regular visit of the appellant at their shop. 7. PW 3 Lakshmi Sah is the person who claims to see the victim and the appellant at Dhanka while boarding in the Bus proceeding for Muzaffarpur and his this statement stood all test of cross-examination. Almost similar is the position of PW 5 Meghu Prasad who has seen both on the same day after few hours at about 10 a.m. at Muzaffarpur Bus stand. Thus, this much is clear that on the relevant day the victim-cum-grand daughter of the informant remained in company of the appellant. 8. PW 10 Dr. Almost similar is the position of PW 5 Meghu Prasad who has seen both on the same day after few hours at about 10 a.m. at Muzaffarpur Bus stand. Thus, this much is clear that on the relevant day the victim-cum-grand daughter of the informant remained in company of the appellant. 8. PW 10 Dr. Manjura Nath is the doctor who examined the victim on 2nd July, 1996 on police requisition based on different test came to conclusion that she was aged 16 to 17 years and PW 11 Dr. Jasbir Saran is another doctor examined the victim as one of the members of the Board and both opined something and proved Ext. 4. Thus by application of law the victim may also be treated around or 18 years of age. 9. There also appears no controversy as regards the age of the victim and the trial Court also while exonerating the appellant from the charge under Section 366-A, IPC found him guilty only for the offence under Section 366, IPC and during course of argument learned counsel representing informant and the State both also confined their submissions for the offence under Section 366, IPC itself conceding the victim may be presumed has just attained the age of majority. 10. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer and scribe of fardbeyan proved Exts. 2 and 3, recorded statement of the witnesses, inspected P.O. but further admits recovery of the victim at the time when she had come to depose before Court at the instance of defence and thereafter he came into action got her medically examined and since she has already made statement under Section 164. Cr PC her statement under Section 161. Cr PC was not recorded though taken. 11. Now the most relevant witness is none-else than the victim herself examined as PW 8. She comes to state on 25th May. 1996 at about 3 p.m. the appellant took her away initially to village Ruphara and thereafter Muzaffarpur from where to Patna again came back to Motihari. It was done in the pretext of seeing a film and from Motihari with the permission of Court she returned to her house and at the time of leaving the house she had one bag containing cloth and purse containing ornaments. Etc. All such ornaments has been kept by the appellant. She also asserts about recording her statement before Magistrate. It was done in the pretext of seeing a film and from Motihari with the permission of Court she returned to her house and at the time of leaving the house she had one bag containing cloth and purse containing ornaments. Etc. All such ornaments has been kept by the appellant. She also asserts about recording her statement before Magistrate. In very brief examination-in-chief she has not uttered other exploitations by the appellant. However, in cross-examination she states in para-4 about making statement before Magistrate about initially going in the garb of seeing film to Ruphara and she has a bag and purse containing cloth and ornaments and such ornaments has been kept by the appellant. Further she says that she studied up to Class 8th. There was break due to her manage two years ago at her Sasural. She lived there for a month marriage was also consumed hut on return she never went there nor even was in touch with her husband through letters also inspite of receiving one from him at Sasural. In para 11 she states what ever film she has seen and at her parents place it was seen only on television. In para 14 she admits having in normal touch and contact with the appellant while he was visiting her shop and it was continued since before her marriage and the appellant used to write her letters though there was no reply from her and her family members had no objection in being normal touch with the appellant since it was always done at the shop for a short while but at most of the times both talks whenever they have been able to get privacy. Further in Para 16 she asserts about a case filed by her husband in which compromise had already been affected and since then they are not ready to get her back. Now the crucial statement of this witness comes in Para 17, wherein she states, at about 2 to 3 a.m. appellant knock the doors as per talk in the evening and assured to marry her since both had been continuing with sweet relationship for long much before marriage with her husband. In the following paragraph she asserts the appellant had already been married and used to write letters to her which was not acceptable though never complained. In the following paragraph she asserts the appellant had already been married and used to write letters to her which was not acceptable though never complained. Further though at the relevant time he offers for marriage but she refused and came out of the room and left the house unwillingly by force but simultaneously raised no objection. Further she visited different places with him but never complained to anyone about her forcefully taking away with him. Again in Para-23 she states the appellant insisted her for marriage though she refused. In subsequent paragraph she has denied of having any physical contact with the appellant and living as husband and wife, but in para 26 again she says inspite of his willingness she will not marry with him and further confirms that her ornaments etc. have already been taken and retained by the appellant. In Para-32 she states the appellant has got a pair photographs snapped by force but she is unable to name the studio nor the photograph is on the record, but this much is evident from her statement• during lengthy cross-examination containing several pages that the appellant being matured and older than the victim having in touch with her since before her attaining majority during which her marriage was also performed, but he never resiled from taking undue advantage of the situation continued to be in her touch making offers and ultimately succeeding in getting her away for about quarter passed one month even snapped a pair photograph. Since every such things have been coming without any whisper in examination-in-chief of the victim during her lengthy cross-examination, the appellant cannot claim amnesty from the effect of such statements. 12. At this juncture it is also relevant to state the defence evidence. Exts. A to A/4 arc the letters said to have been written by the appellant addressing to Suraj which the appellant claims to have been addressed to him but without any specific active materials. Ext. 13 is the complaint filed by husband of the victim against her and family members on 1st, June 1996 alleging her marriage and Bidai with the appellant. This appears filed roughly a week after the victim enticed away by the appellant giving rise to such suspicion in the mind of her husband and in-laws. Exts. C to C/2 are deposition of the witnesses and Ext. D is judgment. 13. This appears filed roughly a week after the victim enticed away by the appellant giving rise to such suspicion in the mind of her husband and in-laws. Exts. C to C/2 are deposition of the witnesses and Ext. D is judgment. 13. All such materials discussed above are clearly indicative of the facts that taking undue advantage of the victim indolence very wisely the appellant taking initiative continued his evil attempts for substantial period and inspite of her marriage took her away, and ultimately she has been deserted. True it is, the victim inspite of her unwillingness without conceding to offer and assurance for marriage put forward by the appellant, joined his accompany, but this much can very well be inferred that the appellant was in full control of the situation and continued with her to many knowing and anticipating fully well that during period of his accompany the victim may be persuaded and compel to succumb and he shall be able to achieve his target. Such act of the appellant attracts requirement to constitute an offence under Section 366, IPC which reads as such : "366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to many any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid." 14. In the facts and circumstances, the instant case further finds support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maniram Hazarlka (supra) but the facts, circumstances and the principles decided in the remaining cases, i.e. (1) 20031 SCC 60S, Jinish Lal Sah v. State of Bihar; (2) (2002) 7 SCC 721 , Rajendra @ Raju v. State of Maharashtra; (3) (1994) 1 SCC 468 , State of Karnataka v. Sureshbabu Pukraj Porral; (4) (1979) 4 SCC 336 , Chhotelal & Anr. v. State of Hariyana; (5) 1970 (3) SCC 211 , Ram Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh relied upon by the appellant are not applicable in the present case. And in view of the findings arrived at, specific details of the cases, may enhance the volume, but shall not serve any purpose. 15. Thus, there appears no reason to disturb finding of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 366, IPC. However, lapses of 17 odds right from the day one including 14 years in appeal alone needs reconsideration on the point of sentence. At this juncture, it seems required to be taken that the victim has already been deserted by her husband due to the wrong committed by the appellant so instead of sending the appellant to serve remaining period of sentence it is desirable that the victim may substantially be compensated. 16. Thus, only subject to payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- strictly within a period of two months, payable to the victim, the sentence may be reduced as sentence undergone. But failing such payment the appellant shall have to serve the sentence already awarded to him by the trial Court. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with the above modification in sentence. Let copy of first and last page of judgment be at once transmitted to the Court below for needful through fax. Appeal dismissed.