JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the accused No.2 against the order of conviction and sentence dated 12.03.2010 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Spl. Case No.108/2009 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 368 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case for the purpose of this appeal is as under: On 12.09.2008 at about 5.45 pm. PW-4-minor girl had gone to school. She did not return to the house till 8.30 pm. Complainant-PW-1 after returning to house from business, enquired about his daughter. He came to know that his daughter had come to the house at about 5.45 pm and immediately left to her friend’s house namely PW-5. Therefore, PW-1 went in search of his daughter. Immediately, PW-6, whose daughter was also missing, searched for them. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that accused No.1 had procured both minor girls and had taken them to an unknown place. Therefore, they lodged a complaint before the police under Ex.P-1. On the basis of the same, Crime No.26 of 2008 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 366A of IPC. After investigation, it was found that the accused had kidnapped PWs.4 and 5 and concealed them in her house at Khanapur in the house of accused No.3. PW-11 traced all the accused along with kidnapped minor girls and arrested all the accused and recorded the statement of PW-4 and PW-5. 3. After completing investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the appellant and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 368, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC before jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge held trial of the case and found accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 368 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Consequently, the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 368 and 504 of IPC. Accused No.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 366A, 368 and 506 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 368 and 504 of IPC. Accused No.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 366A, 368 and 506 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Accused No.5 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 506 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 4. The present appeal is filed by accused No.2 being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the Sessions Court is opposed to law and facts of the case. Even in the absence of cogent evidence, the Sessions Court has wrongly convicted the accused. The Sessions Court committed an error in believing the highly interested, contradictory, unreliable and artificial evidence of the witnesses. The prosecution has suppressed all the material facts. There was delay in lodging the complaint which has not been considered by the Special Court. The Special Court ought to have acquitted the accused on the ground that PWs.4 and 5 on their own will accompanied with the accused and the appellant and the other accused did not kidnap or forced her to go with him. The learned Special Judge has not considered the evidence of victim girl PW-4. She has deposed that she knows all the accused persons and she left the house with her friend PW5 on the date of incident, without informing her parents in the house. They met accused No.1 and he told them that he will take them to Ganapati festival. Both PWs.4 and 5 went with accused No.1. PWs.4 and 5 did not raise alarm when the accused kidnapped them. They kept quiet till the marriage of PW4 with accused No.5. It is further contended that there is no enmity between the appellant and PWs.4 and 5. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence of PW-5. They kept quiet till the marriage of PW4 with accused No.5. It is further contended that there is no enmity between the appellant and PWs.4 and 5. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence of PW-5. She has stated in her cross-examination that though she insisted PW-4 not to go to Ganapati festival, her friend PW-4 stated that they will halt at night on that day in a known person’s house and will return by next day. It is further submitted that though PWs.4 and 5 stayed with the accused for six days. They did not try to escape. Hence, on all these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He contended that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he has prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. The challenge against accused No.2, who is appellant before this Court is comprised in point Nos.2 and 3 framed by the trial Court read as under: II. Whether prosecution has further proved that A1 Sri. Pradeep Valkeri, A2 Smt.Gourawwa, A3 Smt.Subhadevi, A4.Smt.Shalawwa from 12/09/2008 to 17/09/2008 knowing fully well that PW4, PW5 have been kidnapped and wrongfully confined them in the house of A3 Smt.Subhadevi bearing No.1637/A2 of Kadrolli and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 358 (it should have been under Section 368) r/w. 34 of IPC? III. Further prosecution proves that on 12/09/2008 to 17/09/2008 all accused together threatened PW4 Kumari. Gulabsha, PW5 Kumari.Latha to cause criminal intimidation of threat to their lives when they were confined in the house of A3 Smt.Subhadevi and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.Code? 8. At the time of argument, the counsel for accused submitted that almost all the accused have undergone the period of sentence imposed on them and he is not aware, whether accused persons have preferred any appeal before this Court. 9. The learned AGA, office of this Court, is directed to look into this matter and report whether any appeals are preferred by any of the accused persons. 9. The learned AGA, office of this Court, is directed to look into this matter and report whether any appeals are preferred by any of the accused persons. Finally, it is reported by AGA and counsel for the appellant and also from the office report that no appeal has been filed by other accused persons. The role played this appellant No.2 is comprised in the above two points that is for the offences punishable under Sections 368 and 506 of IPC. Even though the accused might have under gone the sentence, when an appeal is preferred, questioning the legality of the findings given by the trial Court has to be examined. Because, the findings by the Appellate Court would have effect by either confirming the sentence or acquitting. The stigma on the part of the convicted accused may go if they are acquitted. Since this appeal is filed by accused No.2, the evidence pertains to accused No.2 will be appreciated. 10. The point that arises for my consideration is that: “Whether the prosecution has proved before the trial Court beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 had committed offences punishable under Sections 368 and 506 read with 34 of IPC?” 11. My finding on the above point is in the affirmative. 12. It is the specific evidence of PWs.4 and 5 the kidnapped girls that A1 took them on some pretext and brought them to the house of A2-Smt. Gourawwa and kept them whole night. They also stated that Gourawwa-A2 threatened to kill them, if they insist to go to their parent’s house and insisted them to obey her words. A2 secured A3 over the phone and told PW-4 to marry with a boy, then they lock the PWs.4 and 5 and went away. Again they came back, then accused No.4 insisted to marry PW4 with accused No.5. Then again they stayed whole night in the house of accused No.3 on the next day. 13. So far as forcible marriage is concerned, the role played by accused No.2 is not spoken by the witness. On the next day of that incident, accused No.2 came there and brought A3 to A5. Then she was kept in the house of accused No.5. Therefore, even according to the evidence of prosecution, accused No.2 was responsible for keeping or concealing minor girls for a day immediately after they were kidnapped. 14. On the next day of that incident, accused No.2 came there and brought A3 to A5. Then she was kept in the house of accused No.5. Therefore, even according to the evidence of prosecution, accused No.2 was responsible for keeping or concealing minor girls for a day immediately after they were kidnapped. 14. The consistent evidence of PW.4 is that accused No.1, took them to the house of accused No.2. She insisted them to obey her words. She secured other accused persons, then took the victims to other places would go to show that accused No.2 had played an important role. Therefore, she has wrongfully concealed minor girls and caused criminal intimidation to them. Even in the cross examination of PWs.4 and 5, no admission or contradiction are elicited. Their evidence is not at all believable more than this. Accordingly, they have no personal enmity against accused No.2 to implicate this accused falsely. The only direct evidence that could be believable is that of PWs. 4 and 5. They are the victims of the incident and the best evidence has to come from them. The overt act done by accused No.2 is specifically spoken by PWs.4 and 5. Their evidence is found to be naturally believable and acceptable. In spite of knowing that, tender aged girls were kidnapped, she kept them in custody and locks the door and threatens them. That would definitely attract the ingredients of Section 368 of IPC. Though there is some evidence regarding forcible marriage etc. charge sheet has not been filed for the offence punishable under Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 15. The prosecution has not preferred any appeal against the judgment passed by the lower Court against all the accused persons. The trial Court in its best wisdom has convicted the accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 368 and 506 of IPC and directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-with default sentence. The prosecution has also not preferred any appeal. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the findings given by the trial Court are to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the point is answered in the affirmative. 17. The prosecution has also not preferred any appeal. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the findings given by the trial Court are to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the point is answered in the affirmative. 17. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : The appeal filed by the accused No.2 against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.03.2010, passed by V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in SC.No.108/2009 is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in respect of this appellant/ accused No.2 is concerned stands confirmed. Send back LCR along with copy of this judgment to the lower Court.