JUDGEMENT & ORDER : The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2009, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Darrange, Mangaldoi in Criminal Appeal No.24(D-3)/2008, whereby the judgment and order dated 08.07.20018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mangaldoi in G.R. Case No.410/2000, is upheld wherein the accused/petitioners were convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for two years with a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default S.I. for another two months. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 06.04.2000, the father of the victim lodged an FIR alleging inter alia that his daughter, aged about 15 years 8 months, was found missing from the house since 03.04.2000 and subsequently they came to know that the accused Md. Aftab Ali along with his family members have kidnapped his daughter. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the Paneri P.S. Case No.29/2000 was registered under Section 366 IPC and on due investigation, the case was charge sheeted against four accused persons namely: (1) Md. Asmohammad Ali, (2) Md. Aftab Ali, (3) Salauddin Ali and (4) Alauddin Ali. 3. During the course of the trial, one of the accused Asmohammad Ali expired and accused Aftab Ali absconded and the other two accused persons i.e. the present two revision petitioners faced the trial and they denied the charge. 4. The prosecution examined three witnesses and the defence examined none. The plea of the defence is of total denial. Statement of the accused persons was recorded and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused persons under Sections 366 IPC and sentenced each of the accused persons as aforesaid. 5. The Appellate Court did not interfere into the aforesaid findings of the learned Trial Court on the appeal so preferred. Hence the present petitioners are before the Court to challenge the legality and validity of the aforesaid order. 6. I have heard the submission of Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, representing the State respondent. 7. Assailing the aforesaid judgment, it has been contended by Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners that the case suffers from serious infirmities: firstly because the age of the victim was not proved and secondly there is no supporting evidence. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, representing the State respondent. 7. Assailing the aforesaid judgment, it has been contended by Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners that the case suffers from serious infirmities: firstly because the age of the victim was not proved and secondly there is no supporting evidence. Even the Medical Officer was not examined in support of the age and other aspects of the matter. It is contended that the prosecution has examined only the informant and the victim apart from the I.O. and no other witnesses. Further it has also been contended that the prime accused Aftab Ali is already absconding and the present two petitioners were the maternal uncles of the accused Aftab Ali is no away associated with the offence but however the learned Trial Court accepting the sole testimony of the victim, has convicted the accused/petitioners which is bad in law. Referring to the evidence of victim and even the evidence of the informant, it has been further contended that the same depict a story of elopement on the part of the victim herself and it is not a case of kidnapping. 8. Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam on the other hand submitted that basing on the testimony of the victim, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused persons and the victim herself stated to be a minor and the same is not disputed by the defence. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence on record. 10. The evidence of the victim being crucial, let us examine her evidence first. 11. In first part of her statement as PW.2, the victim had stated that on the day of occurrence while she went to a watch shop, she found the accused on the road and on being asked to accompany him to take tea, she went with him to a hotel and thereafter both of them went to Kachubil, where the accused Aftab sold his bicycle and also the bicycle of the PW.2 and with that money, he hired a taxi to go to Mangaldoi at Night and she was kept in Madhuban Hotel and thereafter she was taken to Rangia and then proceeded to Delhi by North East Express train. At this stage, it is stated that present two accused petitioners forced her to go with Aftab in taxi. The victim and the accused Aftab stayed at Delhi for 3/4 days but the father of the accused Aftab brought them back. The victim could not say her date of birth nor any school certificate/birth certificate has been produced and according to the victim, she was aged 15 years 8 months at the time of occurrence. 12. So far as the conduct of the victim herself, it reveals that she loitered along with accused Aftab at different places, as discussed above but at no point of time, she tried to fled away from the clutches of the accused. From the conduct of the victim itself, it reveals that she voluntarily went with the accused Aftab and she has never deposed about the involvement of the present two accused/petitioners, specifically in the whole affairs. It is also hard to accept that the present two accused/petitioners being the maternal uncles of accused Aftab, will assist to kidnap the victim girl. All the time, she was taken through public places but she reported nobody about her forceful abduction by the accused. The accused and the victim were brought back by the father of the accused Aftab from Delhi. There was no sort of supporting evidence regarding such forceful abduction on the part of accused Aftab from the public place. In such circumstances, it can be inferred that the victim voluntarily eloped with accused Aftab. 13. So far as the age of the victim, there is no such medical evidence, school certificate, birth certificate, etc. to support that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence. Although the victim as well as her father has failed to disclose the date of birth, even though she was reading in Higher Secondary. At least a school certificate could have been produced in support of such contentions. 14. The victim in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, has stated about the love affairs between them but same is not stated in course of trial, which has raised another scope to hold that she eloped with accused Aftab on her own accord for which she made no resistance. 15. The father of the victim (PW.1) also did not explain the reasons for filing the FIR after so many days of the incident. 16. 15. The father of the victim (PW.1) also did not explain the reasons for filing the FIR after so many days of the incident. 16. As the victim was found to have voluntarily accompanied the accused Aftab and there is no evidence to prove the minority of the victim and also there is no specific evidence about the involvement of the present two accused/petitioners in the whole affairs, the learned Trial Court has wrongly come to the finding, only on the basis of one line statement of the victim that the accused persons forced her to enter into the taxi, hired by accused Aftab. 17. There being no other proper supporting evidence, as has been discussed above, the evidence of the victim cannot be relied which suffers from so many infirmities. 18. It is found and hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the present two accused/petitioners. Accordingly the impugned order dated 08.07.20018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mangaldoi in G.R. Case No.410/2000, which was upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Darrange, Mangaldoi in Criminal Appeal No.24(D-3)/2008, is hereby quashed and set aside and the accused/petitioners are set at liberty forthwith. 19. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this order.