JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:-- 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18-07-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 14(2) of 2005 whereby he partly allowed the appeal filed by the present petitioner and set aside the conviction of the petitioner under section 493 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) but upheld his conviction under section 366 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-(rupees five thousand). The judgment dated 12-05-2005 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in case No. S.T. 12 (NT/D) of 2005 was modified accordingly. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 04-06-2003 at about 11 a.m. when the prosecutrix was proceeding towards the house of a private tutor by the side of the road near Tehashil Office of Lalcherra, the appellant came in a white coloured Maruti car, kidnapped the prosecutrix for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the mother and father of the prosecutrix went out of search for her but failed to find her. They came to know that the prosecutrix was living in the house of the petitioner from where the prosecutrix was rescued. It would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner is the husband of the elder sister of the prosecutrix but according to the prosecution, the accused-petitioner had driven out his wife after demanding dowry on 31-05-2003 about two weeks before the occurrence. 3. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-5. She stated that on the fateful day at about 11 a.m. she was going towards the house of her tutor. Thereafter, the accused got down from his vehicle, lifted her and took her away forcibly in the vehicle. The accused allegedly covered her mouth with a piece of cloth to prevent her from raising an alarm. She was taken in the said vehicle to a house in Kadamtala. There she was locked up upto 2 p.m. Thereafter, she was shifted from one hut to another hut by the side of the house of the accused. At night, she was confined in one hut and the door was locked from outside. 4. She was taken in the said vehicle to a house in Kadamtala. There she was locked up upto 2 p.m. Thereafter, she was shifted from one hut to another hut by the side of the house of the accused. At night, she was confined in one hut and the door was locked from outside. 4. According to the prosecutrix, on the next day, she was again shifted by the accused to the house of his sister at Chandpur under Churaibari Police Station and kept there throughout the day. In the evening, her parents along with neighbours came to this house but the accused gagged her mouth and took her to a room where goats were kept and thus her parents could not find her. Thereafter, the accused along with his sister and mother forcibly applied vermilion to her forehead and also put bangles on both her wrists. She was then taken to the house at Kadamtala and confined there for two months. According to her, she was raped during this period. Thereafter, a case was lodged and the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the accused. She states that the accused was married to her elder sister and at the relevant time her elder sister was living in her parental house. 5. In cross-examination, she admits that throughout this period, she was not taken outside Tripura. Though in examination-in-chief she has not stated that there was any other person but in cross-examination she stated that besides the accused there was driver and two other persons in the vehicle. However, none of them has been named or identified. She was confronted with a statement allegedly written and signed by her and addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Churaibari Police Station. She was also confronted with her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. She admits that on 11-09-2003 she was brought before the Judicial Magistrate where her statement was recorded and she also states that she voluntarily got her statement recorded. 6. The portion of the statement of the witness recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. with which she was confronted reads as follows:- () asked me that where I shall go. I stated that for a special reason with you I shall go to your house. Thereafter I had come to the house of brother-in-law Biplab Nath at Kadamtala by the said vehicle. I stated that for a special reason with you I shall go to your house. Thereafter I had come to the house of brother-in-law Biplab Nath at Kadamtala by the said vehicle. Be it mentioned here that since a few days after solemnization of marriage of my elder sister, she did not tolerate brother-in-law Biplab Nath for some unknown reasons and she had come back in her parent’s house. I had tried to comprehend my elder sister Mitali Nath along with mother and father that the elder sister should go to her parent’s house and maintain her marriage life. In view of this statement all the family inmates along with my elder sister told me that there is an illicit relation between the said Biplab Debnath and me. While Biplab Debnath had come to our house before the day of the said incident then the elder sister together with mother father had assaulted me and Biplab Debnath physically. And after delivering the filthy language () stated that I may go with Biplab Debnath. This clearly shows that she was not kidnapped. 7. More important is the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:- On oath I am stating that on 11th June at around 12.00 O’clock noon I had gone to the house of Biplab Nath at Kadamtala. Be it mentioned here that my mother, father, sister had assaulted me on that very day. I had narrated the entire fact of the incident to Biplab. He told me to go back to the home. On that day in the afternoon I had ringed a phone in my house. On that day itself my father had gone to Kadamtala taking people at night and (he) informed the local people that I had come here from the house with Biplab by way of fleeing. On the following day I went to Gauhati with Biplab. I got married with Biplab in a temple over there. After staying over there for a month we had come back further at Kadamtala in the month of July. There I used to live in the house of Biplab as his wife. On the last 8th August the police personnel’s had taken to Biplab by arrest. At present he is in jail. After staying over there for a month we had come back further at Kadamtala in the month of July. There I used to live in the house of Biplab as his wife. On the last 8th August the police personnel’s had taken to Biplab by arrest. At present he is in jail. My elder sister named Mitali had given in marriage with Biplab on last 16th Aswin B.S. After passing 4/5 months of the solemnization of marriage my sister had come back to her parent’s house. My sister had a love affair with one boy named Subrata Nath. For this reason my sister did not agree to go back to her husband’s house. At present my sister used to mixing with the said boy. I used to resist of such mixing of my sister. For this reason my mother, father and sister used to assault me. Owing to the said manner inflicted by my family inmates I had left that place and had married Biplab. This is my statement. 8. A bare perusal of the statement recorded by the Magistrate clearly belies the prosecution case that the prosecutrix was kidnapped. The statement clearly shows that she had voluntarily gone with the accused and lived with him as his wife. She states that she got married to Biplab in a temple. Keeping all these facts into consideration, her statement in Court cannot be believed. I am of the considered view that this appeal has to be allowed. 9. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The judgments of both the Courts below are set aside and the accused is acquitted. His bail bonds stand discharged. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. 11. Send down the lower court records forthwith.