JUDGMENT 1. HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.-Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 2. This Cr. Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 18.1.2001 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Case Nos. 85 of 1996/10 of 1999 by which and whereunder, he convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence as stated above and co-accused, Ranjeet Kumar Mandal was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A & 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years u/ss. 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code and was further sentenced for the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code for the period already undergone by him in jail custody whereas; co-accused, Krityanand Mandal and Ranveer Mandal were acquitted of the charges framed against them for the offences under Sections 363 & 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.3.1995, P.W. 10 Kumud Kumar Jha gave written report to Sri Nagar O.P. stating therein that his sister, namely, Bharti Kumari @ Baby (P.W. 5) aged about 12 years was kidnapped by Ranjeet Kumar Mandal, Ranveer Mandal and Krityanand Mandal on 1.3.1995 and the aforesaid fact was admitted by FIR named accused, Krityanand Mandal before the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Majhua, Raniganj, District-Araria. He further stated in his written report that his family members searched the aforesaid Bharati @ Baby but they failed to trace her out. 4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, K. Nagar (Sri Nagar) P.S. Case No. 12 of 1995 under Sections 363, 366 & 368 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly, formal FIR was drawn against Ranjeet Kumar Mandal, Ranveer Mandal and Krityanand Mandal for the offences under Sections 363, 366 & 368 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was investigated by the I.O. and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet against FIR named accused as well as the appellants was submitted. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, in usual way. 5. The matter was investigated by the I.O. and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet against FIR named accused as well as the appellants was submitted. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, in usual way. 5. The appellants alongwith other accused were put on trial and accordingly, appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code whereas; accused, Krityanand Mandal, Ranveer Mandal were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 368 of the Indian Penal Code and accused, Ranjeet Mandal was, separately, charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants as well as other accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, prosecution examined, altogether, 12 witnesses and also got exhibited some documentary evidence. 7. The statements of appellants as well as other accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. in which, they reiterated their innocence. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants but the appellants got exhibited some documentary evidence. 8. Learned Court below having considered the materials available on the record, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order in the manner as stated above. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that appellants were not named in the first information report but they were convicted by the trial court only on the ground that in course of trial, P.W. 5 stated that she had been made captive for twenty days in the house of these appellants. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submits that the I.O. of the case has not been examined as he had already died. He, further, submits that in course of trial, it came to light that the P.W. 5 was not recovered from the houses of these appellants and, therefore, there is nothing on the record to corroborate the statements of P.W. 5 and in the aforesaid circumstance, the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code is not in accordance with law and the appellants are entitled to get the benefits of doubts. He further submits that co-accused, Ranjeet Mandal, against whom there was specific charge that he kidnapped and raped P.W. 5, has already been released from jail custody by the trial court after sentencing him for the period already undergone by him in course of trial and so far as two other accused, namely, Krityanand Mandal and Ranveer Mandal are concerned, they have also been acquitted by the trial court on same set of evidence which had been produced against the appellants and, therefore, only on the solitary statement of P.W. 5 appellants could not have been convicted. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that not only P.W. 5 but P.W. 10 as well as some other witnesses also stated this fact that P.W. 5 had been confined in the house of these appellants and furthermore, P.W. 5 has, specifically, stated in her deposition that the appellant No. 1 and other accused used to pressurize her to write a letter in their favour and, therefore, the aforesaid statement of P.W. 5 clearly indicates this fact that appellant No: 1 was aware of this fact that P.W. 5 had been kept in his house after kidnapping. He further submitted that so far as appellant No. 2 is concerned, the P.W. 5 has stated that when she was shifted from the house of appellants and had been brought in another village, the appellant No.2 had accompanied the other accused namely, Ranjeet Mandal, so, the above said circumstance indicates that appellants were fully aware of this fact that the victim (P.W. 5) had been kidnapped and after kidnapping, she had been kept in their house and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. On perusal of evidences available on the record, I find that P.W. 5, the victim, has, specifically, stated at paragraph-2 of her examination-in-chief that she had been kept in the house of appellants for 20 days after her kidnapping and in the house of these appellants, co-accused Ranjeet Mandal had committed rape upon her. She, further, stated at paragraph-3 of her deposition that appellant No. 2 and accused, Ranjeet Mandal took hoer to Bahadura villager from the house of these appellants. She, further, stated at paragraph-3 of her deposition that appellant No. 2 and accused, Ranjeet Mandal took hoer to Bahadura villager from the house of these appellants. Furthermore, she stated at paragraph-5 of her deposition that appellants and other accused pressurized her to write a letter to police but she refused to buckle upon the aforesaid pressure. The P.W. 5 has been cross-examined by the defence at length but the defence could not succeed to elicit any material to disbelieve the deposition of P.W. 5. 13. No doubt, the I.O. of this case has not been examined but admittedly, the I.O. had already died and, therefore, non-examination of the I.O. is not fatal to the prosecution case. P.W. 10 has stated that P.W. 5 was recovered by the police from Bahadura village. The recovery of P.W. 5 from Bahadura village corroborates the statement of P.W. 5 that she was taken to Bahadura village by appellant No.2 and co-accused, Ranjeet Mandal and, therefore the statement of victim is corroborated by the P. W. 10 and I do not find anything to disbelieve the statement of P.W. 5 and in my view, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place in the year, 1995 and the appellants were sentenced in the year, 2001 and at that time, appellant No. 1 was aged about 50 years whereas; appellant No. 2 was aged about 40 years. After pronouncement of impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order more than ten years have already been passed and now appellant No. 1 has become near about 61 years whereas; appellant No.2 has become near about 51 years. The appellants have already remained in jail for near about 13 months and, therefore, in my view, instead of sending the appellants in jail to serve out their sentences, their sentences should be reduced and ends of justice would be meet, if they are sentenced to period already undergone by them in course of trial and, accordingly, it is held that the appellants are sentenced to period already undergone by them in course of trial. 15. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this appeal stands dismissed with modification in sentence order in the manner as stated above.