JUDGMENT : T.S. Thakur and R. Banumathi, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 15.02.2013 passed in Crl. Revision Petition No. 679 of 2002 and order dated 15.07.2013 passed in Crl. Misc.Appln. No. 3719 of 2013 whereby the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has affirmed the conviction of the appellants herein for an offence punishable under Section 366, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded to them. The First Appellate Court and the High Court in revision have set out the factual matrix in which the appellants herein came to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. We therefore consider it unnecessary to re-capitulate the same over again. All that we need say is that the three courts below have concurrently held the appellants guilty of the offence with which they were charged. 3. Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants all the same took pains to take us through the evidence adduced at the trial in an attempt to show that the conclusion drawn by the courts below was against the weight of evidence if not perverse. We regret to say that we do not see any merit in that contention. The courts below have in our opinion rightly relied upon the statements of PW 1 the husband of the victim, PW 2 the sister of the victim who was accompanying the victim her at the time of her abduction and was an eye-witness to the incident as also PW 3 the mother of the victim who has deposed about the events relevant to the occurrence. There is in our opinion nothing intrinsically improbable about the version given by the witnesses nor is there any error or perversity in the view taken by the courts below for us to interfere in exercise of our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. To the extent the courts below have found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 366, IPC therefore we find no reason to take a different view. 4. Mr. Basant then argued that the incident in question took place as early as in the year 1994 when the appellants were in the age group of 23 to 28 years. 4. Mr. Basant then argued that the incident in question took place as early as in the year 1994 when the appellants were in the age group of 23 to 28 years. None of the appellants has had any criminal antecedents and that even according to the statements made by the victim before the Magistrate immediately after her return from the alleged abduction and confinement she was not molested or sexually abused. That apart according to the version of the prosecution the brother of appellant No. 1 Pramod had brought the victim to her mother's place which according to learned counsel suggested that there was no intention to cause any harm to her. It was submitted that looking to the totality of the attendant circumstances the Court could consider reducing the sentence suitably. There is in our opinion merit in that contention. The incident is nearly 20 years old. The appellants were very young at the time of the alleged occurrence. The appellants were also it appears known to the victim as they happened to be her neighbours. The appellants version that the appellant Pramod was in a relationship with the victim has not been established at the trial though such a relationship was indeed suggested in the course of cross-examination of the witnesses. It is also not in dispute that the appellants were not charged with any attempt to physically assault or seduce the victim for any sexual favours. 5. In the totality of these circumstances we are inclined to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants from five years to three years. We order accordingly. 6. The only other aspect which Mr. Basant pointed out relates to a direction issued by the High Court to the Director General of Police, State of Kerala to take necessary steps for a proper investigation into the subsequent incident of suicide committed by the victim punishable under Sections 306 and 506, IPC as the High Court has come to the conclusion that the suicide was apparently because of threats extended and harassment to the victim by the appellants. An attempt to have that direction vacated was made by the appellants in Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 3719 of 2013 before the High Court which application was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 15.07.2013. Mr. An attempt to have that direction vacated was made by the appellants in Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 3719 of 2013 before the High Court which application was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 15.07.2013. Mr. Basant argued that the High Court appears to have proceeded on the premise that no investigation into the incident leading to the demise of the victim was ever conducted. He urged that Crime No. 151 of 1997 was in fact registered in regard to the said occurrence at Kasaba Police Station and after investigation a closure report submitted to the jurisdictional court according to which the deceased was said to have committed suicide on her own volition. He urged that although there is nothing on record to suggest that the report was accepted by the Jurisdictional court concerned, since the incident is of the year 1977, the legal process may have been taken to its logical conclusion by the investigating agency submitting a report and the court accepting the same. It is submitted that court so long as the order passed by the accepting the closure report was not reversed in exercise of the revisional powers of the High Court, a direction for further investigation or fresh investigation was misplaced. 7. That Crime No. 151 of 1997 was registered at Kasaba Police Station in connection with the unfortunate demise of the victim in unnatural and suspicious circumstances is not in dispute. There is however nothing on record to suggest that the investigating agency submitted a report and the jurisdictional court had dealt with the same in accordance with law. Since considerable time has elapsed by now, we can assume that the legal process would have been concluded in accordance with the procedure established by law and a final order passed by the competent court accepting the closure report. In that view therefore any direction for further or fresh investigation would necessarily require the said order of the court to be revised for which purpose the High Court could and indeed ought to have summoned the relevant record if it was of the opinion that any such further investigation was required to be conducted. The order passed by the High Court does not however suggest that any such procedure was followed. The order passed by the High Court does not however suggest that any such procedure was followed. There is nothing in the order passed by the High Court to even show that the High Court intended to reverse the order passed by the Magistrate concerned whereby the closure report may have been accepted. Be that as it may to the extent the High Court directed a further investigation to be conducted into the death of the victim, the matter needs to be re-examined appropriately having regard to the result of the investigation conducted in Crime No. 151 of 1997 and the consequential orders passed by the competent court in the same. To that extent we are inclined to set aside the direction for further investigation as issued by the High Court. We order accordingly. We however leave it open to the High Court to examine whether or not it is a fit case in which it ought to exercise its powers under Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for reversal of the order if any passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the closure report. With the above modifications we partly allow and dispose of this appeal.