JUDGMENT The appellant is lodged in prison since 4th August, 2010. She has been convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 and 366-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years each for both the convictions. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The judgment was delivered on 26th August, 2011. 2. The appeal has been filed on 8th February, 2013. There was a huge delay in filing the appeal. Since the appellant has been convicted for the serious offences, the delay was condoned. The appeal was admitted and was listed for final hearing on priority basis as the sentence imposed on the appellant was also about to be completed. 3. It was alleged before the trial Court that the appellant and absconding accused Guddu, on 27.07.2010 in furtherance of their common intention, had taken the victim girl Ku. Nanda from lawful guardianship of her mother Mrs. Janki Suresh Kumar. It is alleged that the victim girl Nanda and her sister Pallavi had gone to a Tea Stall known as "Jagannath Tea Stall" near Gondia Railway Station for taking tea. The appellant met them on the tea stall and offered them snacks. The absconding accused was also with her. They took them to railway station and boarded a train. Younger sister Pallavi who has been examined as P.W. 3, sensing some trouble, jumped out of the train on the platform and rushed to her mother. She informed her mother that Nanda had been taken away by a woman and a man. They started searching for the missing girl Nanda. They could not trace her. No missing report was ever lodged in respect of the missing girl Nanda till registration of offence on 3rd August, 2010. It is the case of prosecution that mother of the victim girl and her sister Pallavi both were continuously in search of Ku. Nanda. It is on 3rd August, 2010 that the appellant was spotted at Gondia Railway Station and she was taken to Gondia Railway Police Station. Her statement was recorded at the Police Station and case was transferred to Gondia City Police Station as the said Jagannath Tea Stall was within the jurisdiction of Gondia City Police Station. Nanda. It is on 3rd August, 2010 that the appellant was spotted at Gondia Railway Station and she was taken to Gondia Railway Police Station. Her statement was recorded at the Police Station and case was transferred to Gondia City Police Station as the said Jagannath Tea Stall was within the jurisdiction of Gondia City Police Station. The appellant was identified by Pallavi to be the same woman who had offered Pallavi and her sister Nanda snacks at Jagannath Tea Stall. 4. After registration of the offence at Gondia City Police Station, statements of witnesses were recorded during the course of further investigation. Panch nama of the spot was drawn. Search was made for the absconding accused. Various police stations were informed. Policemen from Gondia City Police Station were deployed at various stations to search the victim girl and culprits. The victim girl and absconding accused however could not be traced despite frantic efforts by the police. Charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondia. The same was committed to the Court of Sessions at Gondia. The trial was proceeded only against the appellant, since another accused Guddu was absconding. It was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and after conclusion of trial the appellant was convicted as stated herein above. 5. During the course of trial, the respondents had examined five witnesses in support of their case. P.W. 1 is panch witness. P. W. 2 is mother of the victim girl. P. W. 3 Pallavi is younger sister of victim girl. P. W. 4 is Investigating Officer. P.W. 5 is Police Head Constable who had recorded statement of Pallavi at Gondia Railway Police Station. The panch witnesses had turned hostile. The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of P. W. 2 Janki and P. W. 3 Pallavi. P. W. 2 stated that she was informed on 27th July, 2010 by her younger daughter P.W. 3 that her elder daughter Nanda aged about 16 years was taken away by one woman from Jagannath Tea Stall near Gondia Railway Station. She was also informed that Pallavi anyhow could escape from the custody of that lady. P. W. 2 stated that she was informed on 27th July, 2010 by her younger daughter P.W. 3 that her elder daughter Nanda aged about 16 years was taken away by one woman from Jagannath Tea Stall near Gondia Railway Station. She was also informed that Pallavi anyhow could escape from the custody of that lady. P. W. 2 had stated that during the course of their search P. W. 3 had spotted the appellant on 3rd August, 2010 at Gondia Railway Station and had identified her to be the same lady who had taken away victim Nanda from near Jagannath Tea Stall. The appellant had been identified by P.W.2. 6. As far as P.W. 3 is concerned, she has more or less supported the evidence of P. W. 2 and has stated that her elder sister was taken away by the appellant and that the appellant was identified by her when she was seen by her at Gondia Railway Station at about 10.00 p.m. 7. Learned counsel Ms. Smita Singalkar has submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report which has not been explained. It is submitted by her that P. W. 2 has not explained as to what prevented her from reporting the matter to police if the girl was not traceable for about a week. It is her submission that this is an indication of the fact that the absconding accused was known to the victim girl and her mother. It is further submitted that the appellant had no role to play at all in the alleged incident of kidnapping and abduction of victim girl Nanda. 8. Apart from this, it is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is stereotype and that the only evidence against the appellant is oral evidence of P. W. 3 identifying the appellant at Gonda Railway Station to be the same lady who had taken away victim girl Nanda. Ms Singalkar, learned counsel for the appellant, had submitted that P.W. 3 was twelve years old when her evidence was recorded in the Court. She was a child witness and therefore, the learned trial Court was under obligation to evaluate her evidence with great care and caution. Ms Singalkar, learned counsel for the appellant, had submitted that P.W. 3 was twelve years old when her evidence was recorded in the Court. She was a child witness and therefore, the learned trial Court was under obligation to evaluate her evidence with great care and caution. It was submitted that the learned trial Court was under obligation to see as to whether there was any other evidence available which was withheld from the Court by the prosecution. In this regard, my attention was invited to the evidence of P. W. 5 Police Head Constable who had recorded statement of P.W. 3 at Gondia Railway Police Station. It is submitted that P. W. 5 had admitted in his evidence that there were four female and two male persons accompanying Pallavi when she had come to the Police Station. Identity of those persons has not been disclosed by P. W. 5 in his evidence. P.W. 5 in his evidence has stated that he could not tell the names of the persons who had accompanied the complainant and P.W.3 Pallavi when the complaint was recorded at Gondia Railway Police Station. The investigating Officer Mr. Kishore Parvate has also not stated anything about the said women and men who had accompanied Pallavi. However, after having gone through the record of the trial Court, I find that P. W. 4 had recorded statements of about four other persons, which include Jagannath Nandanwar and Suresh Nandanwar. These two persons were running tea stalls from where Nanda was allegedly abducted. The Investigating Officer had also recorded statements of two of the relatives of P.W.2. The prosecution has not examined either Sunder Nandanwar or his father Jagannath Nandanwar for which there is no explanation. It appears from the prosecution case that at least one of the relatives of P.W. 2 was present when the appellant was intercepted at Gondia Railway Station. That relative has also not been examined. As such, best of the evidence has been withheld from the Court. In view of withholding of material witnesses, the learned trial Court should not have taken risk of accepting the evidence of child witness P.W.3 who is a solitary eyewitness. The learned trial Court has not even bothered to find out whether the child witness was able to understand meaning of oath and whether her evidence could be recorded on oath or without oath. The learned trial Court has not even bothered to find out whether the child witness was able to understand meaning of oath and whether her evidence could be recorded on oath or without oath. As such the approach of the learned trial Court while recording evidence was very very casual. 9. Considering what has been stated by me herein above, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for both the offences cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following order. i) The appeal is allowed. ii) Judgment and order dated 26th August, 2011 passed by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No.86 of 2010 is set aside. iii) The accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363 read with Section 34 and 366-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. iii) The appellant be released from the prison, if not required in any other case. iv) Fine if paid by the appellant, shall be refunded to her. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.