JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is preferred against the judgment and order, dated 04-12-2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2006, convicting the accused-appellant, under Sections 366 of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. 2. None appears on behalf of accused-appellant on call for last several days. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal on merit after examining the evidence on record as well as the judgment of the learned trial Court. However, heard Mr. PS Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Nurema Begum, the victim, examined as PW4, was kidnapped by accused Md. Nazim Uddin, on 27-01-2006, at about 7.00 p.m., from infront of her house while she came out for throwing water outside her house after chopping vegetable etc. in their kitchen along with her two sisters. She was kidnapped by the accused-appellant, who was accompanied by 2/3 other persons. Her father/PW1 came home back. She was found missing. He was searching the victim/PW4/his daughter upto 02-02-2006 and when she could not be traced out, PW1 lodged the FIR with Lala Police Station. 4. Lala Police Station registered a case, being No. 13/2006, under Section 366(A) of the IPC, investigated into it, collected evidence, arrested the accused and, finally, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for commission of an offence, under Section 366(A) of the IPC. 5. During the course of investigation, police got the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also she was examined by a doctor in the hospital. 6. Charge was framed under Section 366 of the IPC against the accused-appellant, to which the accused-appellant pleaded innocence. 7. In this case, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Police Officer. The defence examined none. The defence subjected the prosecution witnesses to cross-examination. The defence case is of total denial. In his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant denied the fact of commission of the offence alleged. 8. On completion of the trial, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, as indicated above. 9. The defence examined none. The defence subjected the prosecution witnesses to cross-examination. The defence case is of total denial. In his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant denied the fact of commission of the offence alleged. 8. On completion of the trial, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, as indicated above. 9. Now, in view of the evidence on record, let us see whether prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge against the accused-appellant for commission of the offences of kidnapping of the victim/ PW4 by the accused-appellant with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will. For determination of the above noted point, this Court has examined the evidence on record. 10. In this case, it is found that out of 7 witnesses, examined by the prosecution, PW6 and PW7 are respectively the Medical Officer and the Investigating Police Officer. PW1 is the informant. PW2 and PW3 are the sisters of the victim. PW4 is the sister of PW2 and PW3 and the victim herself. PW5 is the elder brother of PW2, PW3 and PW4. 11. It appears from the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 that none of them are the witnesses to the occurrence. PW2 and PW3 only stated, during their evidence, that they heard the victim/PW4 shouting with the word ‘didi’ from outside their house at about 7.00 pm, when she went out of her house. 12. PW4, the victim, herself also deposed in her evidence that once she raised alarm, but after putting clothes in her mouth by the accused-appellant, she could not raise alarm any further. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 that PW4 shouted as ‘didi’ appears to have been supported by PW4 as she herself also deposed that once she shouted raising alarm. But, so far the accusation that the accused-appellant abducted or kidnapped her, she has no independent knowledge, and even her evidence does not reveal that she was reported about such fact by PW4. Similar is the evidence of PW4 with that of PW2, therefore, needs no repetition. 13. The evidence of PW5 is that he is the elder brother of PW2, PW3 and PW4. Similar is the evidence of PW4 with that of PW2, therefore, needs no repetition. 13. The evidence of PW5 is that he is the elder brother of PW2, PW3 and PW4. According to him, police recovered the victim from the house of the accused-appellant after 22 days, which is in tune with the evidence of victim/PW4 as she also deposed that she was recovered after 22 days from the house of the accused-appellant. 14. PW1 is the informant, who lodged the FIR finding her daughter/PW4 missing from her house. The FIR was lodged on 02-02-2006, i.e., after about 4 days from the date of occurrence, as the occurrence took place on 27-01-2006. He has explained, in his evidence that the delay was due to the fact that he was in search of his daughter/PW4 during these days and only when he could not trace out her, lodged the FIR. 15. Therefore, from the evidence discussed above, it appears that to hold that the accused-appellant to have committed the offence, this Court has to rely upon the only evidence of victim/PW4. 16. PW4, in her evidence, on oath, before the Court made a categorical statement that the accused-appellant, along with 2/3 others with him, kidnapped her from infront of her house and kept her in his house for 22 days till she was recovered by police. She also deposed that she was kidnapped and even she was prevented to raise alarm by putting clothes in her mouth by the accused-appellant. There is no corroborative evidence to support such statement of the evidence of PW4 by any other witness, as discussed above. 17. In the evidence of PW7 as well as of PW4 herself, it is found that her statement was recorded, on oath, by the learned Magistrate, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is available on record. In her statement before the learned Magistrate, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim claimed her age to be 17 years. She categorically stated before the learned Magistrate, in her such statement, that she was taken by the accused to his house about 25 days back. She visited the shop of the accused-appellant at about 7.00 pm on the date of occurrence, and there from, both of them left for the house of the accused-appellant. They were in love for last 5 years. She visited the shop of the accused-appellant at about 7.00 pm on the date of occurrence, and there from, both of them left for the house of the accused-appellant. They were in love for last 5 years. Her brother went to the house of the accused-appellant to take her back, but she did not come. They also got married. 18. The fact that has come out from the statement of the victim, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is that she has not alleged that the accused kidnapped or abducted her. The remaining part of the offence under Section 366 IPC will come only when the first part, i.e., kidnapping or abduction is proved. In the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim herself has deposed that she went to the house of the accused-appellant on her own from his shop on the date of occurrence at the time she was alleged to have been kidnapped. 19. The statement of the victim, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and in her evidence, on oath, recorded by the learned trial Court leaves this Court with no doubt that she is not reliable in her version as she shifted from one version to another in her both the statements. 20. That being so, the evidence of victim/PW1 is not found reliable and there is doubt about the correctness of the version put forth by her in her evidence before the Court. 21. Therefore, in view of the discussions on the evidence above, in the considered view of this Court, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 23. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order.