JUDGMENT : ARUN KUMAR RAI, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 04.11.2003 passed by the learned 6 th Additional Session Judge (F.T.C) Dumka in Session Case No. 123 of 2003/2/03 corresponding to G.R. No. 522 of 2003 & Dumka (muff.) P.S. Case No. 49 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the learned court has been pleased to convict the appellant u/s 366A and 368 of I.P.C. and directed to undergo R.I.of four years and three years respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution is based upon the fardbeyan of father-in-law of victim recorded on 10.06.2002 who stated that he and his wife were taking back their daughter-in-law from village Dhadhakia (her parental home) to his place at Haripur on 07.05.2002 and in the evening they boarded on a vehicle maxi. As maxi was over crowded, therefore, he sat on the roof of the maxi whereas his wife and daughter-in-law (victim) sat on different seats of maxi. When passenger got down and there was room in the maxi then he came from the roof and saw that his daughter-in-law was not present in the maxi. His wife was also not aware about the absence of their daughter- in-law. On query from conductor, informant came across the fact that one boy and girl deboarded from maxi at Karma more and they went towards karma village, thereafter, he made search of his daughter-in- law and reached Dhadhakia and apprised his samdhi (father of victim) and villager about missing of his daughter-in-law. During course of search, it was found that Babloo Roy @ Manoj Roy resident of Dhadhakia enticed his daughter-in-law and taken away. Further his samdhi apprised informant that victim was kept by Babloo Roy @ Manoj Roy and kept her in his house at Dhadhakia and was not allowing any person to meet her. Then information was given to police and above said fardbeyan got recorded and on the basis of which Dumka (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 49 of 2002 on 10.06.2002 under Section 341, 342 & 363 I.P.C. got registered. 3. From perusal of record it transpires that after institution of FIR police arrested the appellant and recovered victim also from the house of appellant and after due investigation chargesheet was submitted that cognizance was taken and matter was committed to court of sessions. 3. From perusal of record it transpires that after institution of FIR police arrested the appellant and recovered victim also from the house of appellant and after due investigation chargesheet was submitted that cognizance was taken and matter was committed to court of sessions. Charges has been framed under Section 366 and 368 IPC to which convict/appellant did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Victim has been examined in the present case as P.W. 5 who stated that she was going to her sasural with her father-in-law and mother-in- law by vehicle and the convict-appellant had put cloth on her mouth, took her away from the vehicle and extended threat and asked her to accompany him. She was taken to Burdwan and she was kept there for fifteen days and thereafter she was brought to his home (at Dhadhakia) and she was not allowed to come out of the house and when her in- laws intimated police, then she was recovered from his house. Father- in-law has been examined as P.W. 8 and mother-in-law has also been examined as P.W. 9, who primarily stated in their respective testimony about taking away of daughter-in-law by convict/appellant while they were going to their place(Haripur). In cross-examination P.W. 5 (victim) has stated that there was number of persons in the vehicle and she was sitting near her father-in-law, mother-in-law and at the time of deboarding she made hulla (shouted) but passengers sitting in the vehicle did not stop her and her in-laws also did not stop her. She boarded down from the maxi by telling her mother-in-law that she was going for urination and thereafter, bus started and she was kept by appellant and she went to Burdwan along with convict/appellant by bus. She has also stated that number of persons boarded and deboarded from the bus at the place where she boarded on the bus, but she did not tell them, on account of fear that she was taken forcefully. She also did not utter a word to driver, conductor and khalasi of the vehicle and the said vehicle stopped at number of places. Even she did not tell anything at Burdwan. Thereafter, she went to Dhadhakia at Babloo’s house and she was taken by appellant that place only. She also did not utter a word to driver, conductor and khalasi of the vehicle and the said vehicle stopped at number of places. Even she did not tell anything at Burdwan. Thereafter, she went to Dhadhakia at Babloo’s house and she was taken by appellant that place only. Victim has also stated that she did not attend natural call for fifteen days as she was not allowed by appellant to go out at Burdwan and even she had not taken meal. Victim has stated her age as twelve years at the time of marriage and incident took place two years after the marriage. Victim has been examined medically and her ossification test was done and on the basis of said test, age of victim was found between 16-17 years. Report has been marked as Exhibit 1 in the present case. Doctor has proved the said report who has been examined in the present case as P.W.1. Doctor (P.W.-1) has also stated in cross- examination that age of girl (victim) may exceed by margin of one year from either side. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that it is trite law that ossification test is not a perfect science for determination of age and two years margin ought to be given to consider the age of the person concerned. Learned counsel further pointed out the cross examination of the victim and submitted that simple perusal of cross-examination clearly reveals that victim has accompanied appellant with her own sweet will and accord and there was no enticement on the part of appellant. 6. Learned APP submitted that no interference is required in the impugned Judgment passed by learned trial court as the victim and other witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. 7. Heard the rival submission of parties and perused the trial court record. 8. As far as age is concerned, it is already stated in the preceding paragraph that on the basis of ossification test, age of the victim is found as 16-17 years. In cross-examination Doctor (P.W.-1) has stated that age of victim may exceed by margin of one year from either side. Consideration of age on the basis of ossification test, it is required to be noted that it is trite law that it is not the exact science that can provide with the exact age of the person. In cross-examination Doctor (P.W.-1) has stated that age of victim may exceed by margin of one year from either side. Consideration of age on the basis of ossification test, it is required to be noted that it is trite law that it is not the exact science that can provide with the exact age of the person. The individual characteristic such as growth rate of bones and skelton structure affects the accuracy of this method. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Suresh Singh versus Prabhat Singh (2009) 6 SCC 681 has held that the ossification test is not conclusive for age determination because it does not reveal the exact age of the person but the radiological examination leaves a margin of two years on either side of the age range as prescribe by the test irrespective of whether the ossification of multiple joint is conducted. 9. In view of the above stated legal position, report of ossification test of victim and testimony of Doctor (P.W.-1), this Court is of the considered view that at the time of alleged incident victim was not below the age of eighteen years, as the ossification test gives range of age of victim 16-17 years. The fact which has come from the mouth of victim in her cross examination that victim lived for fifteen days at Burdwan with appellant and went to Burdwan by boarding the bus where she was having ample opportunities to disclose to other persons regarding her forceful taking away by the appellant but she did not choose to do so and she remained at Burdwan for fifteen days in a house where she was also having an opportunity to approach the public authority or even convey the misdeed of convict/appellant to other persons but she did not do anything. Even when she was being taken from Burdwan to Dhadhakia, she also boarded bus then she was also having an opportunity to speak but she kept mum. All the above stated acts of the victim clearly shows that victim was consenting party and she was accompanying the appellant/accused of her own will and accord. 10. The aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the learned trial court while analyzing the evidence available on record and thus appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 11. All the above stated acts of the victim clearly shows that victim was consenting party and she was accompanying the appellant/accused of her own will and accord. 10. The aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the learned trial court while analyzing the evidence available on record and thus appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 11. Therefore, this Court is of considered view that impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2003 passed by the learned 6 th Additional Session Judge (F.T.C) Dumka, in Session Case No. 123 of 2003/2/03 corresponding to G.R. No. 522 of 2003 & Dumka (muff.) P.S. Case No. 49 of 2002 requires interference by this Court and consequently it is hereby set aside. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 13. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 14. Let trial court record be sent back to the court concerned.