JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 28.11.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2005 whereby and where under, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 367 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.2000/-. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and for the offence punishable under section 379, the appellant has been directed to undergo R.I. for 2 years. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief as unveiled in the written report is that on 12.12.2004, when the informant along with his wife had gone to their work place at Sona Tangar where they were engaged in cutting stones, their two daughters Punita aged about 9 years and Sunita aged about 3 and half years were in the house. When the informant returned to his house at 05:00 P.M., he was informed by his younger daughter that the elder daughter of the informant was breaking the box and the informant found that the Rs.1,500/- kept in the box and other belongings of his daughter Punita was not in the said box and his daughter Punita was also missing. On search, the informant came to know that his daughter Punita was standing in Patratoli bus stand. On reaching the Patratoli bus stand, the informant found his daughter Punita standing with the accused-appellant- Sahodra Kumari. The informant brought both of them to his house. On getting the information, the villagers assembled in the house of the informant and on enquiry, accused-appellant- Sahodra Kumari informed that she was taking the daughter of the informant to Delhi on getting a commission of Rs.1,000/- for this and on enquiry, the informant came to know that the accused-appellant Sahodra Kumari is a professional dealer of girls. Then the accused was brought to police station and on the basis of the written report of the informant police registered Raidih P.S. Case No. 53 of 2004 and hence, took up investigation of the case. 4. Then the accused was brought to police station and on the basis of the written report of the informant police registered Raidih P.S. Case No. 53 of 2004 and hence, took up investigation of the case. 4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused – appellant. After commitment of the case to the court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Gumla framed charges for the offence punishable under section 420/34, 371/34 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. Upon the accused-appellant pleading not guilty to the charges, she was put to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses while no witness was examined by the defence. 5. P.W.1 –Pradeep Minz has stated that on 12.12.2004, in the evening he was at Raidih bus stand. The informant found his missing daughter namely Punita in the bus stand. The accused-appellant was with Punita. The villagers and the informant brought Punita and the accused-appellant to the house of the informant. On being asked by the villagers, the accused-appellant disclosed that she entices away the little girls and takes them to Delhi. The accused-appellant further disclosed that she takes the minor girls to engage them in household works and for that the accused-appellant is paid Rs.1,000/- per child. The accused-appellant also disclosed that one co-accused namely Shashi also helps her in her work. The accused appellant also disclosed that Punita gave her Rs.1,500/- which Punita took away from the house of the informant after breaking open the box and the accused-appellant gave the said amount to Shashi. The accused-appellant further disclosed that she has done these types of acts earlier also. The P.W.1 identified the accused appellant in the court. The accused-appellant also confessed her guilt. In his cross-examination the P.W.1 has stated that the accused-appellant Sahodra was apprehended and brought to the house of the informant. P.W.1 and 20-25 other persons assembled there. 6. P.W.2- Gyani Beck has stated that the occurrence is of 12.12.2004. On hearing hue and cry, she went to the house of the informant. She saw the accused appellant was sitting there. The accused-appellant disclosed that she was taking away Punita Devi to Delhi and further disclosed that she gets commission of Rs.1,000/- for taking each girl to Delhi. P.W.2 also identified the accused-appellant in court. On hearing hue and cry, she went to the house of the informant. She saw the accused appellant was sitting there. The accused-appellant disclosed that she was taking away Punita Devi to Delhi and further disclosed that she gets commission of Rs.1,000/- for taking each girl to Delhi. P.W.2 also identified the accused-appellant in court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that many people assembled on hue and cry. 7. P.W.3 –Sabial Kujur has stated that he went to the house of the informant on 12.12.2004 at 06:00 P.M. The accused-appellant was taking away the daughter of the informant to Delhi by enticing her and has taken the victim to the bus stand. On being asked by the P.W.3, the accused-appellant disclosed that she is paid Rs.1,000/- for taking each of the girl to Delhi. The accused-appellant also confessed that she took the money which was kept in the box of the informant by breaking the same. The accused-appellant was detained throughout the night in the house of the informant and on the next day, she was taken to police station. In his cross-examination he has stated that the accused-appellant was not assaulted. 8. P.W.4 –Prakash Kujur has stated that at 06:00 P.M. on 12.12.2004 he was at Patratoli bus stand. The informant disclosed to P.W.4 that the accused-appellant was taking the daughter of the informant namely Punita to Delhi. The villagers apprehended the accused-appellant and took her to the house of the informant. She was detained in the house of the informant throughout the night. The accused-appellant confessed that her associate Shashi has taken away the money after getting the box of the informant broken. The accused-appellant was detained in the house of the informant throughout the night and on the next day she was handed over to the police. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 has stated that many people were present at that time at the bus stand. 9. P.W.5- Jasinta Minz has stated that she went to the house of the informant, after hearing hue and cry at 06:00 P.M. on 12.12.2004. She came to know that the accused-appellant was taking away the daughter of the informant namely Punita to Delhi. The accused-appellant confessed that she has an associate namely Shashi Kumari and Shashi went away with Rs.1,500/- which was kept in the box in the house of the informant. P.W.5 identified the accused-appellant in court. She came to know that the accused-appellant was taking away the daughter of the informant namely Punita to Delhi. The accused-appellant confessed that she has an associate namely Shashi Kumari and Shashi went away with Rs.1,500/- which was kept in the box in the house of the informant. P.W.5 identified the accused-appellant in court. In her cross-examination, she stated that she cannot tell the name of all the members of Mahila Mandal who were present in the house of the informant. 10. P.W.6 -Raghu Lohra is the informant of the case. He has stated that he along with his wife had gone to Sonatand village for cutting stones and their daughters Punita and Sunita were in their house. When he returned from work, he found that his elder daughter Punita was not present in his house. His younger daughter Sunita informed him that two girls of Khirakhad has come to their house and they have taken Punita along with them by enticing her. The informant searched for his daughter and came to know that her daughter is at Pathartola bus stand. On reaching the bus stand, the P.W.6 found his daughter. His daughter disclosed that the accused-appellant Sahodra was taking her to Delhi. Sahodra was present there and on being asked by the informant-P.W.6, Sahodra disclosed that she was taking Punita to train her. Punita was aged about 9 years at that time. On that day the accused-appellant and her associate Sashi committed theft of Rs.1,500/- from his house. The informant-P.W.6 told the accused-appellant Sahodra to return Rs.1,500/- or else the P.W.6 will take her to police station. Sahodra disclosed that she use to get Rs.1,000/- for taking one child to Delhi as commission. The informant brought his daughter and the accused-appellant to his house. He took the accused-appellant to police station on the next day as it was a dark night and the police station is at a distance from the house of the informant-P.W.6. On the next day he reported the matter and his written report was prepared by Pradeep Minz and he put his thumb impression. He identified the accused-appellant Sahodra in the court. In his cross-examination, the P.W.6 has stated that he kept three notes of Rs.500/- denominations in his box. There was heavy rush in the bus stand. 11. P.W.7 –Punita is the victim herself. He identified the accused-appellant Sahodra in the court. In his cross-examination, the P.W.6 has stated that he kept three notes of Rs.500/- denominations in his box. There was heavy rush in the bus stand. 11. P.W.7 –Punita is the victim herself. Before examining her as a witness, some questions were put to her by the learned trial court to ascertain her capability for adducing the evidence. She has stated that the accused-appellant was taking her to Delhi on a Sunday about seven months prior to her deposing in court. Another lady namely Shashi was with the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant and Shashi came to the house of the P.W.7 and asked P.W.7 to come along with them to Delhi as the P.W.7 does not have good clothes. Both of them took her to the bus stand situated at a distance of half K.M. from her house. Her father came to bus stand in the evening and took both, P.W.7 and the accused-appellant to their house. Shashi fled away from the bus stand itself. In presence of the villagers, accused-appellant stated that she was taking P.W.7 to Delhi to get her employed. In her cross-examination, the P.W.7 has stated that accused-appellant came to her house on the date of occurrence only. P.W.7 was examined by the police. The house of maternal uncle of accused-appellant is in the village of P.W.7. P.W.7 further stated that she knows Biras Mani Devi who is her step mother. 12. P.W.8 –Biras Mani Devi is the mother of the victim Punita. She has stated that when she went for work with her husband -P.W.6. On reaching her house she came to know that accused-appellant had taken away Punita to the bus stand. Her husband went to the bus stand and brought Punita and the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant confessed in presence of the villagers that she was taking Punita to Delhi. She identified the accused-appellant in court. In her cross-examination she stated that she is the second wife of her husband. 13. P.W.9 –Paul Minz has stated that the occurrence is of 12.12.2004. At about 05:00 P.M. on hue and cry he went to the house of P.W.6. The accused-appellant was taken to the house of P.W.6. The P.W.9 came to know that the accused-appellant was taking the daughter of P.W.6 –informant but she was apprehended at the bus stand. 13. P.W.9 –Paul Minz has stated that the occurrence is of 12.12.2004. At about 05:00 P.M. on hue and cry he went to the house of P.W.6. The accused-appellant was taken to the house of P.W.6. The P.W.9 came to know that the accused-appellant was taking the daughter of P.W.6 –informant but she was apprehended at the bus stand. The age of Punita would be around 7 years. Subhadra is also known as Sahodra-the accused-appellant. He was not examined by the police. The accused-appellant disclosed to P.W.9 and others that she gets Rs.1,000/- commission for taking each girl to Delhi and also stated that another girl namely Shashi helps the accused-appellant in enticing the minor girls to go to Delhi. She also confessed that she got the lock of the box of the informant broken and took away the money. The P.W.9 also identified the accused-appellant who was present in the court. In his cross-examination P.W.9 has stated that when he went to the house of the P.W.6, there were 12-15 persons in the house of P.W.6. 14. P.W.10 – Dhena Kisku is the I.O. of the case. He has stated about the investigation done in this case. He has also recorded the restatement of the informant and the statement of the accused-appellant. P.W.10 has described the place of occurrence. He did not get any clue regarding other accused Shashi Kumari. He submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant Sahodra Kumari only and continued investigation in respect of Shashi Kumari. The endorsement on the written report has been marked as Ext. 2. In his cross-examination, the P.W.10 has stated that the accused was brought to the police station by the villagers. He did not seize the box during the investigation. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused-appellant has been recorded by the court wherein, she denied the allegations appearing in evidence against her and pleaded innocence. The learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence available in the record convicted and sentenced the appellant as already indicated above. 15. Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below passed the judgment against the weight of evidence. It is further submitted that the learned court below failed to consider the evidence in record in its proper perspective. 15. Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below passed the judgment against the weight of evidence. It is further submitted that the learned court below failed to consider the evidence in record in its proper perspective. In the absence of any information about the co-accused-Shashi, the entire case of the prosecution has become highly doubtful. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the distance of police station from the place of occurrence being only two kilometers, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. creates doubt about the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that in the absence of any Bus ticket or money being recovered from the possession of the appellant, the learned court below ought to have held that the case of the prosecution is doubtful. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has already undergone the period of sentence. 16. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand submitted that all the ten witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence in record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 363/367 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellant, hence, the accused-appellant having rightly been convicted and sentenced for the said offence, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 17. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and carefully going through the record, I find that the P.W.7-Punita is the victim of the case. She has categorically stated that she was enticed by the accused-appellant out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of her. There is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.7 of any material part of her testimony so the same remains unchallenged. It is to be accepted that the oral testimony of the P.W.7 is corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses who are also the witness to the voluntary extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before them by confessing that she kidnapped the victim Punita from the lawful guardianship of her parents besides committing theft of Rs.1500/- kept in the box of the informant-P.W.6. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no cross-examination on any material particulars of the testimony of any of the material witnesses of the prosecution; hence, the same is to be accepted in the absence of any plausible reason to discard or disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution. Thus, from the evidence in the record, I have no hesitation in holding that the same is sufficient to establish the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 363/367 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellant. 18. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the delay in filing the F.I.R. by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and to discard it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sahebrao vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 (9) SCC 794 reiterated the settled principle of law in this respect by observing thus in paragraph – 6 as under:- “The settled principle of law of this Court is that delay in filing FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. The delay in lodging the FIR would put the court on its guard to search if any plausible explanation has been offered and if offered whether it is satisfactory.” It is pertinent to mention here that the informant and the material witnesses of the case are rustic persons. The occurrence took place in the winter Season in the month of December. The sun sets early in winter days. The informant has deposed that it was a dark night and the police station was at a distance. The occurrence took place in the winter Season in the month of December. The sun sets early in winter days. The informant has deposed that it was a dark night and the police station was at a distance. There is ample evidence in the record that the number of villagers assembled in the house of the informant and enquired about the victim and the accused-appellant was detained in the house of the informant throughout the night so in this backdrop, keeping in view the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the case of the prosecution is be discarded only on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R. In view of the discussions made above I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record is sufficient to bring home the charges against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the accused-appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 363/367 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as made by the learned court below in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2005 is confirmed. Learned court below is directed to verify whether the appellant has undergone the entire period of sentence in custody and in case, the appellant had undergone the period of sentence in custody, she should be released from custody forthwith unless she has already been released after serving out the sentence. 19. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this Judgment forthwith. 20. In the result, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed.