JUDGMENT : (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 21.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 2003, whereby and where under, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366-A of the I.P.C. and sentence to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for five years under Section 366-A of the I.P.C. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 28.05.2002, informant’s minor daughter was missing from the house. He tried to search out his daughter and got the information, the appellant has taken his daughter earlier also. The appellant took her daughter on 16.05.2002 and brought her at Calcutta. But that time on pressure, he produced her daughter in her house. On 29.05.2002, a village Panchayati was called and one of the accused accepted in the Panchayat them that daughter of the informant was with his brother ( Sarwar Mian) at Calcutta. Informant tried to call his daughter, but she did not response. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 19 of 2002, G.R. No. 705 of 2002 was registered for the offences under Sections 366/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against appellant, brother and other family members of the appellant for the offences under Sections 363/366-A/366/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of the offences, the case was committed for the trial thereafter, the charges were framed for the offences under Sections 363/366-A/34 of the I.P.C., which they denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. After conclusion of trial, the other co-accused persons were acquitted, but the appellant was held guilty for the offences under Section 363 and 366-A of the I.P.C. and directed to undergo R.I. for three years and five years respectively for the aforesaid offences. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was love affair between the victim girl and the appellant. Although, victim was minor and the appellant was also teen ager at that time. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was love affair between the victim girl and the appellant. Although, victim was minor and the appellant was also teen ager at that time. Both proceeded from the house with their own sweet will. The offence under Section 366-A is not attracted in this case which requires following ingredients are :- (1) that the accused induced a girl; (2) that the person induced was a girl under the age of eighteen years; (3) that the accused has induced her with intent that she may be or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; (4) such intercourse must be with a person other than the accused; (5) that the inducement caused the girl to go from any place or to do any act. So far as Section 366-A is concerned, in such an offence what is required to be proved by the prosecution is that there is cogent and reliable evidence to prove and establish that a minor girl under the age of 18 years was induced to come from one place to other with the intention that such girl may be forced to have illicit intercourse with another person. Therefore, in such offence, the chief ingredient is that the girl is made to go from one place to the other with the intention or knowledge that she may be forced to have illicit intercourse. The evidence on record does not reveal any such intention. That the prosecutrix was subjected and forced to have illicit intercourse came to be stated for the first time only during the trial, which according to us is nothing but embellishment in order to see that the accused person are made and are subjected to major punishments. 8. The appellant has not procured the victim for the purpose of illicit intercourse or for marriage with any other person he himself committed such offence with the victim. It is further submitted that at best the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the appellant. During course of trial and after conviction, he has remained about more than two months in custody. The occurrence is of the year 2002, more than two decades has been lapsed. Appellant has been sufficiently punished for the offence committed by him. During course of trial and after conviction, he has remained about more than two months in custody. The occurrence is of the year 2002, more than two decades has been lapsed. Appellant has been sufficiently punished for the offence committed by him. Hence, he may be sentenced for the imprisonment already undergone instead of awarding of maximum sentence which is imposed by the learned trial court. 9. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the judgment on merits and also clearly admitted that offence under Section 366-A of the I.P.C. is not constituted in the facts and circumstances proved in this case. Appellant has committed the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C., the consent of minor is not relevant for the purpose of such offence rather it is offence against the guardian, for which the appellant may be severally punished to serve as deterrent in the society. 10. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order along with material available on record. It appears that FIR was lodged against the accused person for the offence under Sections 363/366/366-A read with 34 of the I.P.C. by the father of the victim girl stating inter alia that on 28.05.2002, the victim went out from the house and did not return to home. Suspicion was raised against the appellant, who always used to talk with the victim. On earlier occasion, the victim was taken by the appellant to Calcutta for which the Panchayati was also called in the village, but the daughter of the informant was returned. 11. Further transpires that in the course of trial altogether 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution:- P.W.-1 : Ramji Sao. P.W.-2 : Mustafa Ansari. P.W.-3 : Govind Ram. P.W.-4 : Krishna Paswan. P.W.-5 : Mumtaz Ahmad. P.W.-6 : Janeshwar Paswan. P.W.-7 : Binod Sah. P.W.-8 : Ram Bilash Ram Dem (Informant) P.W.-9 : Anarwa Devi (Mother of the victim). P.W.-10 : Satyendra Ram. P.W.-11 : Sarita Kumar (Victim). P.W.-12 : Anjani Kumar (Investigating Officer). P.W.-13 : Surendra Kumar Singh. P.W.-14 : Dukh Haran Tiwary. 12. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Signature of informant on fardbayan. Exhibit-1/1 : Fardbayan. Exhibit-2 : Statement of Victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Exhibit-3 : Formal FIR. Exhibit-4 : Endorsement of fardbayan. Exhibit-5 : Copy of order sheet and documents. P.W.-13 : Surendra Kumar Singh. P.W.-14 : Dukh Haran Tiwary. 12. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Signature of informant on fardbayan. Exhibit-1/1 : Fardbayan. Exhibit-2 : Statement of Victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Exhibit-3 : Formal FIR. Exhibit-4 : Endorsement of fardbayan. Exhibit-5 : Copy of order sheet and documents. Exhibit-6 : Medical examination report. Exhibit-7 : Age certificate of the victim. 13. The defence has also examined one witness, namely, Sarita kumari and following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Fardbayan. Exhibit-2 : Statement of Victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Exhibit-3 : Copy of order Titugarh P.S. G.D.E. No. 193 dated 03.06.2002. 14. The most important witness is victim girl herself who has been examined as P.W.-11. She has disclosed her aged about 16 years and stated that on 28.01.2002 at about 06:30 PM, she was returning after discharging natures call, meanwhile, appellant ( Sarwar Mian) and one Asgar Mian (brother of the appellant) lifted her and brought to Bhramsthan at Calcutta. When her father lodged the case, the appellant and other accused persons brought her Titagarh Police Station, from where, she was sent to remand home and brought to her house by police. In her cross-examination, she has categorically stated in Para- 11 that she can’t say, as to for what purpose, accused brought her to Calcutta. She also admits that she had come to the Calcutta along with Sarwar Mian, but she did not complain to anyone in the Calcutta nor raised any alarm. 15. The evidence of the victim has been corroborated by the evidence of her father P.W.-8, Ram Bilash Ram Dem and P.W.-9, Anarwa Devi . P.W.-10, Satyendra Ram (social worker), who have also corroborated the contents of the FIR. P.W.-12, S.I.-Anjani Kumar , is I.O. of the case. P.W.-14, Dukh Haran Tiwary , Advocate is a formal witness. P.W.-1, Ramji Sao, P.W.-2, Mustafa Ansari P.W.-3, Govind Ram P.W.-4, Krishna Paswan P.W.-5, Mumtaz Ahmad P.W.-6, Janeshwar Paswan P.W.-7, Binod Sah and P.W.-13, Surendra Kumar Singh have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 16. The evidence of witnesses as discussed above clearly proves the commission of offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. which is extracted as hereunder. P.W.-1, Ramji Sao, P.W.-2, Mustafa Ansari P.W.-3, Govind Ram P.W.-4, Krishna Paswan P.W.-5, Mumtaz Ahmad P.W.-6, Janeshwar Paswan P.W.-7, Binod Sah and P.W.-13, Surendra Kumar Singh have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 16. The evidence of witnesses as discussed above clearly proves the commission of offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. which is extracted as hereunder. Punishment for kidnapping.— Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 17. Admittedly, the victim girl was about 16 years on the date of occurrence and she was taken away by the present appellant at Calcutta out of the lawful guardianship of her father without his consent. Therefore, the appellant has committed the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. It further transpires that in the course of trial, appellant has remained for more than two months imprisonment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence committed by the appellant and also in view of the fact that two decades has been passed and no useful purpose shall be served by sending the appeal to serve the rest of sentence awarded by the concerned trial court. 18. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 366-A of the I.P.C. passed by the learned trial court is hereby set aside, but the conviction for the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. is maintained with alteration in sentence to the period already undergone. 19. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in sentence as stated above. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.