JUDGMENT : Vijay Lakshmi, J. 1. As both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment and order dated 03.3.2006, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Basti in S.T. No. 277/2004, State vs. Ravi Prakash Tiwari and Others, under Sections 363/366 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District-Basti, convicting and sentencing the appellants for three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on each and in default, further one month's simple imprisonment and for their conviction under Sections 366 I.P.C. for 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each with default imprisonment of one month, both are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curaie, Sri Shamsher Bahadur Maurya, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned A.G.A. Sri Shanti Prakash Patel. Perused the record. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.5.2004, a typed report was lodged by one Nirmala Devi against three named and one unknown accused with the allegations that on 22.4.2004, at about 3 P.M., her daughter Durgawati had gone towards Awas Vikas Colony to attend the natural call, but she did not return. Her mother/complainant made extensive search, but in vain. In the F.I.R. it was also mentioned that on the same date i.e. 22.4.2004 at about 7 P.M. her cousin brother Atul Kumar Tiwari informed that he had seen her daughter going in a tempo with accused Budhai @ Sanjay, Ram Surat @ Shesh Nag, Pingal @ Ferai and one unknown tempo driver. It was also stated in the F.I.R. that the complainant immediately went to the Police Station to lodge the F.I.R., but the F.I.R. was not lodged at that time due to her poverty. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report dated 09.5.2004, a criminal case was registered at Case Crime No. 74/2004 at P.S. Kotwali, District-Basti and the matter was investigated. During investigation, the name of appellant Ravi Prakash Tiwari came to light who was the unknown driver. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and after concluding the investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. against the three accused persons namely Ravi Prakash Tiwari, Budhai @ Sanjay and Pengal @ Ferai. During investigation, the name of appellant Ravi Prakash Tiwari came to light who was the unknown driver. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and after concluding the investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. against the three accused persons namely Ravi Prakash Tiwari, Budhai @ Sanjay and Pengal @ Ferai. According to the charge-sheet (Exhibit 5) which was filed on 10.8.2004, the accused Ram Surat was found absconding. Hence he could not be arrested. The victim girl could also not be recovered. 5. After six months of the occurrence, the daughter of the complainant i.e. the victim was found at Bihar border with several injuries on her body. All her teeth were found broken and it appeared that someone had poured Acid on the lower part of body i.e. below her waist line. Due to severe impact of some untoward event, she had lost her mental balance too, therefore, he could not tell anything to the police as to what had transpired in between. 6. The case being triable by the court of sessions, it was committed to the sessions court where charges under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C were framed against all the accused persons including the appellants, who denied their charges and claimed trial, hence the trial proceeded. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced four witnesses in all. PW-1 is Atul Kumar Tiwari, the witness who had last seen the girl in the company of the accused persons, while going in a tempo with them. PW-2 is Nirmala Devi, the mother of the victim girl, PW-3 is Constable R.P. Pandey, who had prepared the check F.I.R. and had made necessary entries in the G.D. and PW-4 is Sub Inspector R.P. Arya, who is the Investigating Officer of this case. No other witness was produced by the prosecution. 8. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied from the truthfulness of prosecution story pleaded their false implication and claimed their innocence. No defence witness was produced by the appellants. 9. Both the prosecution witness of fact fully supported the prosecution case during their testimony. The learned trial court found their statements reliable, trustworthy and accordingly found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 10. No defence witness was produced by the appellants. 9. Both the prosecution witness of fact fully supported the prosecution case during their testimony. The learned trial court found their statements reliable, trustworthy and accordingly found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment mainly on the following grounds: 1. That the learned court below has not considered the fact that no specific role has been assigned to any of the appellants who have been falsely implicated in this case. 2. No motive has been assigned for commission of such heinous offence as admittedly there was no enmity between the parties. 3. There is inordinate delay of about 15 days in lodging the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation for the same. 4. There was no source of light at the place of occurrence, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused-appellants could have been properly identified by PW-1, who has deposed about the victim being lastly seen in the company of appellants. 5. Only two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, both of whom are close relatives and are highly interested witnesses. No independent witness has been produced despite the fact that the place where the victim was last seen in the company of the appellants was a busy public place. 6. There is no medical examination report. 7. The appellants have no criminal antecedents. They were in jail in this case when the victim girl was recovered, therefore, it cannot be said that the victim was in the custody of the appellants prior to her recovery. 8. The statement of the victim could not be recorded by the trial court due to her unfit mental condition, therefore, it cannot be said as to who inflicted such grave injuries on her body. 11. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Amicus Curiae has contended that the prosecution, being unable to answer all these questions, has failed to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond the reasonable doubt, therefore, the judgment of conviction being erroneous and illegal, is liable to be set-aside and both the appeals deserve to be allowed. 12. Per contra, learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the appeals by contending that in this case there is cogent and reliable evidence of last seen against the accused-appellants. 12. Per contra, learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the appeals by contending that in this case there is cogent and reliable evidence of last seen against the accused-appellants. PW-1 has categorically stated in the Court to have seen the accused persons in the company of the victim before her disappearance. The PW-1 has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused persons but nothing could have been elicited to cast a shadow of doubt on the truthfulness of his statement. There is no reason to falsely implicate the appellants who were the regular customers in the tea stall of complainant, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, a bird's eye view on the statements of witnesses is necessary. 14. PW-1 has stated that as the accused persons used to come to the tea stall of the complainant i.e. the mother of the victim girl, he knew them by their names. He has also stated that accused Ram Surat had enticed the victim girl by writing her love letters and the accused-appellants helped him in enticing her away. The relevant part of his statement is reproduced as under:- ^^?kVuk ds le; eSa Cykd jksM+ xka/khuxj cLrh oa'kjkt ds ?kj esa fdjk;s ij jgrk FkkA orZeku le; esa esfMdy dkyst xksj[kiqj esa jgdj dqlhZ chjrk gwaA eSa HkkxkbZ x;h yM+dh nqxkZorh dh nok djk jgk gwaA rFkk lkFk esa nqxkZorh dh eka fueZyk Hkh jgrh gSaA ?kVuk vkt ls djhc 11 ekg gq;s 3-30 cts dk le; FkkA eSa dVjk pkSjkgk ij dqlhZ chu jgk FkkA dkyh eafnj ds ikl vkjk e'khu ds fudV dqlhZ chu jgk FkkA eSaus ns[kk fd VSEiksa dks jfo izdk'k pyk jgs Fks rFkk mlesa cq/kbZ mQZ lat; rFkk jke lwjr o fiaxy mQZ QsjbZ cSBs FksA ml VsEiksa esa nqxkZorh Hkh chp esa cSBh FkhA nqxkZorh dks mDr yksx cgyk Qqlyk dj tcjnLrh ys tk jgs Fks nqxkZorh dh mej ml le; 12&14 lky dh FkhA mlds firk igys gh ej x;s gSA** 15. The complainant i.e. the mother of the victim has corroborated the statement of PW-1. The complainant i.e. the mother of the victim has corroborated the statement of PW-1. in the following words:- ^^?kVuk vkt ls 1 lky 2 eghuk igys dh gS ml le; fnu ds rhu cts FksA esjh yM+dh dks iqjbZ mQZ fiaxy dh yM+dh cqykdj 'kkSp ds fy, vkjk e'khu dh vksj ys x;h Fkh tgka csg;k dk isM+ tek FkkA esjh yMdh tc ,d ?kaVs rd okfil ugh vk;h rc eSa irk djus yxhA bl chp esjs HkkbZ vrqy dqekj frokjh vkdj crk;s fd jfoizdk'k lat; mQZ cq/kbZ rFkk iksjbZ mQZ fiaxy rFkk jke lwjr ;kno VSEiw ij cSBdj ds x;s gSaA ;g lHkh yksx esjs nqdku ij vkdj pk; cxSjg ihrs FksA ?kVuk ds igys jfo izdk'k ;g dgrs Fks fd eSa viuh dh 'kknh mlds lkys ls dj nwaA fdUrq eSa dqN ugha cksyrh FkhA eqyfteku }kjk esjh yM+dh dks blh dkj.k ls cgyk Qqlyk dj ys tk;k x;kA ml le; esjh yM+dh dh mez 13&14 o"kZ dh FkhA og esjs gh ns[kjs[k esa jgrh FkhA** 16. PW-2 has also stated about the poor physical condition in which the victim was found on Bihar border as under: ^^esjh yM+dh ?kVuk ds 6 eghuk ckn v[kckj dh lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij eq>s nsofj;k ftyk ds fcgkj ds ckMZj ij feyh FkhA esjh yM+dh ds psgjs ij ,oa 'kjhj ij pksV FkhA rstkc Mky fn;k x;k FkkA mldk lkjk nkar rksM+ fn;k x;k FkkA eSa viuh yM+dh dks ysdj iqfyl ds lkFk cLrh vLirky vk;h Fkh tgka ls mls iqfy; ds lkFk xksj[kiqj esfMdy dkyst Hkst fn;k x;k Fkk tgka mldk bykt 5 eghus gqvkA mlds ckn DokVj ysdj xksj[kiqj esa gh mldk bykt dj jgh gwaA ?kVuk ds ckn ls gh mldh ekufld fLFkrh Bhd ugha gSaA og fdlh dks Hkh igpku ugha ikrh gSA lta; mQZ cq/kbZ }kjk ?kVuk ds igys dgk tkrk Fkk fd ,d fnu fpfM+;k mM+ tk;sxhA** 17. PW-2 has faced gruelling cross-examination by the defence counsel but she has remained consistent in her testimony and her statement as a whole inspires confidence. The statement of PW-1, who has last seen the accused-appellant in the company of the girl was found trustworthy by the trial court and there appears no reason to deviate with the view of the trial court. 18. The statement of PW-1, who has last seen the accused-appellant in the company of the girl was found trustworthy by the trial court and there appears no reason to deviate with the view of the trial court. 18. Both the witnesses are rustic villagers and their statements have been recorded after a long gap of time, therefore, some minor contradictions are but natural and they should be ignored while assessing their evidence. 19. It is also well settled legal position that the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses which is material and conviction can be based even on a single testimony if it is found to be trustworthy. 20. It is noteworthy that admittedly there is no enmity between the parties. The accused-appellants used to visit the tea stall of the complainant and in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. none of them has denied this fact. They have not stated a single word as to why they have been falsely implicated in this case. 21. All the accused/appellants have given vague answers to the questions put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and just by a vague and general denial they have tried to show their innocence. 22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Kumar Upadhya vs. State of A.P. (2012) 6 S.C. 174, has held as under: "The statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it affords the accused an opportunity to explain its conduct and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him. If the accused gives incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the Court can draw an adverse inference against him. Such conduct of the accused would tilt the case in favour of the prosecution." 23. In Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2011) 10 SCC 192 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "Where there is reliable evidence of "last seen" the burden is on the accused to explain properly when and where he departed with the company of the victim." 24. In Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2011) 10 SCC 192 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "Where there is reliable evidence of "last seen" the burden is on the accused to explain properly when and where he departed with the company of the victim." 24. In Ramnaresh vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "The object of recording of a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But once he does not avail this opportunity, the consequences in law must follow." 25. In Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "(i) In cases where the accused was last seen with the deceased victim (last seen-together theory) just before the incident, it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim occurred. 1992 (2) SCC 106, relied. (ii) The doctrine of "last seen together" shifts the burden of proof on the accused, requiring him to explain how the incident had occurred-Failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, would give rise to a very strong presumption against him. 2006 (10) SCC 681 relied, relied." 26. The present case rests on the evidence of last seen which has been found reliable by this Court. The prosecution has also very well established the "motive" which was to kidnap the girl for the purpose of committing rape with her and also to perform her marriage with the co-accused Ram Surat. There is no reason as to why the mother of the victim girl would falsely implicate the regular customers of her tea stall when there was even no dispute between them as none of the accused has stated even a single word that there was some dispute with the mother of the victim due to which she falsely implicated them. 27. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the learned trial court found the appellants guilty and convicted them. There does not appear any illegality in the judgment and order impugned which has been passed on the basis of cogent reasons and sufficient grounds. 27. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the learned trial court found the appellants guilty and convicted them. There does not appear any illegality in the judgment and order impugned which has been passed on the basis of cogent reasons and sufficient grounds. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. 29. The appellants were in jail in this case during trial and also during pendency of appeal. 30. As the bail application of the appellants was rejected by this court vide order dated 26.2.2007, vide order dated 30.1.2017, a report was called from the Jail Superintendent regarding the period already undergone by the appellants in this case, which has been received from jail to the effect that the appellants after undergoing the entire period of the sentence awarded by the trial court and on their depositing the fine imposed on them, have been released from jail. 31. As the appellants have already spent the entire period of sentence, there is no need to pass any further order in this case. 32. Sri Shamsher Bahadur Maurya, Advocate, learned Amicus Curiae who has very efficiently assisted this Court in disposal of both these appeals, shall be paid a consolidated fees of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand rupees only) for satisfactorily assisting this court in both these appeals.