JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel for the accused appellant. Also heard Mr. BJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 25.09.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 67/2006 convicting the accused appellant under Section 366 of the IPC and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for another period of 15 (fifteen) days. 3. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial, is that the victim Jasmin Begum Laskar, aged about 14 years, while coming out from her house to ease out, the accused appellant, Amzad Hussain Choudhury, with the help of two other boys kidnapped her. After vigorous search, the father of the victim came to know that the victim was concealed in the house of the accused appellant by the accused appellant. The occurrence took place on 03.05.2005. 4. On the basis of such facts, the FIR was lodged by the informant with the Lala Police Station. The Lala Police Station registered a case, being No. 40/2005 under Section 366(A) of the IPC, investigated into it, collected evidence, recovered the victim girl from the possession of the accused appellant, examined the victim by the Doctor and also got her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, and finally, submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused appellant under Section 366(A) of the IPC. 5. After exhausting all the legal formalities, a formal charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 366(A) IPC to which he pleaded innocence. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 5 (five) witnesses in this case. The defence examined none. 7. During the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution as well as in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the accused appellant is found to have denied the accusation levelled against him by the prosecution. 8. On the basis of facts of the case, including the evidence, this Court is to decide as to whether on 03.05.2005, the accused appellant kidnapped or abducted the victim, Jasmin Begum Laskar from her house with intention that she might be compelled to marry him or she will be seduced to illicit sexual intercourse. 9. 8. On the basis of facts of the case, including the evidence, this Court is to decide as to whether on 03.05.2005, the accused appellant kidnapped or abducted the victim, Jasmin Begum Laskar from her house with intention that she might be compelled to marry him or she will be seduced to illicit sexual intercourse. 9. For the decision of the above noted points, the evidence on record has been thoroughly scanned. It deserves to be mentioned here that the victim, in the instant case, could not be examined as a witness as she died before her evidence could be recorded. 10. PW1 and PW2 are the father and the mother of the victim Jasmin Begum Laskar respectively, and they were found to have laid evidence to the effect that while their daughter, i.e., the victim came out of her room, for easing out, to the bathroom, she did not come back. Thereafter, they started search for the victim, and ultimately, came to know that the victim was kidnapped by the accused appellant and was kept in his house as informed to them by Hillal Uddin, the President of Local Gaon Panchayat. According to PW1 and the PW2, the said Hillal Uddin also suggested them that the accused appellant would marry the victim Jasmin Begum Laskar fixing Mehr of Rs. 50,000/-, besides giving gold ornaments, to which the parents of the victim, i.e., the PW1 and the PW2, consented. The PW1 lodged the FIR, vide Ext. 1, and after investigation on the basis of the FIR, the victim was recovered. 11. PW3, who is the neighbour of the PW1 and PW2 is found to have stated in his evidence that after hearing that the daughter of the PW1 and the PW2 was missing, he visited their house and came to know from them that the victim was kidnapped by the accused appellant who was subsequently recovered. 12. PW4 is the Doctor, who examined the victim, and opined her age to be below 18 years of age. He has specifically opined that the victim was between 12 to 15 years of age at the time of occurrence. In any case, the victim was below 18 years of age as appears from such evidence. 13. 12. PW4 is the Doctor, who examined the victim, and opined her age to be below 18 years of age. He has specifically opined that the victim was between 12 to 15 years of age at the time of occurrence. In any case, the victim was below 18 years of age as appears from such evidence. 13. PW5 is the Investigating Police Officer, who has narrated the various stages of the investigation of the case, including getting the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, recovery of victim from the possession of the accused appellant from his house and also about recording of the statements of the witnesses. His evidence appears to be of routine nature, so far the investigation of the case is concerned and the most vital part of his evidence is the recovery of the victim from the house of the accused appellant. 14. The evidence of the witnesses, to sum up, makes it appear that the victim, i.e., the daughter of the PW1 and the PW2, was kidnapped by the accused appellant, and that on the date of occurrence, the victim was a minor are the facts which remained unassailed during the cross-examination of the witnesses. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 appears to be unanimous in respect of the fact of kidnapping of the victim by the accused appellant. 15. That being so, the unassailed evidence of the prosecution witnesses makes it clearly appear that it was the accused appellant who had committed the offence of kidnapping/abducting the victim who was a minor. The evidence of the PW1 and the PW2 makes it appear that there is an offer that the accused appellant would marry the victim. We have already found that the victim was a minor at the relevant time of occurrence. That being so, it relates to a offence intended marriage of the accused appellant with the minor girl, attracting the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, and not under Section 366(A) of the IPC, under which Section charge has been framed by the learned Sessions Judge. 16. I have also gone through the statement of the accused appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. 16. I have also gone through the statement of the accused appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. It appears from his such statement that the accused appellant has denied the accusation levelled against him and has not found to have made any statement in respect of the recovery of the victim girl from his possession. 17. That being so, the consistent and corroborative evidence, as referred to above, leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for conviction of the accused appellant under Section 366 of the IPC. 18. Accordingly, the order of conviction, recorded by the learned Trial Court of Sessions Judge, is upheld as the same is based on the evidence on record. 19. So far the punishment of the accused appellant is concerned, the learned Trial Court of Sessions Judge, sentenced the accused appellant to Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for another period of 15 (fifteen) days. 20. This case is of the year 2005. The impugned judgment was delivered by the learned Trial Court on 25.09.2007 and the appeal was preferred before this Court on 02.01.2008 and now we are in the year 2017. Considering the chronological order from institution of the case to the disposal of this appeal, it is found to be a long journey of almost 12 years as of now. 21. So, considering the facts, this Court is of the considered view that if the accused appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone will meet the ends of justice. However, in respect of the punishment, by way of fine, this Court is of the view that fine deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- from Rs. 500/-. The accused appellant will pay the fine before the learned Trial Court within 1 (one) month from today and in default he will undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 7 (seven) days. 22. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed. 23. Send down the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.