JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2017 passed in S.T. No. 121 of 2015, arising out of Gidhour P.S. Case No. 30 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 383 of 2013, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioners for discharge has been rejected. 2. It appears that the case was instituted u/s 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code in which it was alleged that the victim Dipa Kumari was enticed away by one Sohit Kumar Yadav. Based on the aforesaid allegation Gidhour P.S. Case No. 30 of 2013 was instituted. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the victim was a major girl for which sufficient evidence has been brought on record by the defence and without giving consideration to the said documents the learned trial court had wrongly come to a conclusion that the victim is a minor aged about 15 years and 05 months while refusing to discharge the petitioners u/s 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has also been submitted that the present case is the counter blast of earlier Gidhour P.S. Case No. 47 of 2012, lodged by the petitioner no. 4 (Damodar Thakur). 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. It appears that various documents have been produced by the defence in support of their claim that the victim was a major girl. The impugned order discloses about the production of Adhar Card, the report of the medical board, the admission register of primary school and the assessment of the age of the victim girl at the time of recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court seems to have given a complete go by to the submission advanced by the defence with respect to the age of the victim as according to the learned counsel for the petitioners if, proper appreciation was made with respect to the age of the victim no case u/s 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code could have been attracted against the petitioners. It is also not known as to how the learned trial court had come to a conclusion that the victim was aged about 15 years and 05 months and therefore she was a minor at the time of the occurrence. 6. It is also not known as to how the learned trial court had come to a conclusion that the victim was aged about 15 years and 05 months and therefore she was a minor at the time of the occurrence. 6. Since the assessment of the age of the victim girl leads to the very foundation of the initiation of the case u/s 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and since proper appreciation has not been made with respect to the documentary evidence brought on record by the defence, while setting aside the impugned order dated 20.01.2017 passed in S.T. No. 121 of 2015 arising out of Gidhour P.S. Case No. 30 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 383 of 2013, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after consideration of the documents submitted by the defence with respect to the age of the victim girl. The exercise indicated above should be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. This application stands disposed of.