JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Above named appellant has preferred this criminal appeal challenging judgment of conviction dated 07.08.2007 and order of sentence dated 13.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 545 of 2004/Session Trial No. 86 of 2005 (arising out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 48 of 2004), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 366-A/34 and 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. R.I. for five years under Section 366A/34 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences are directed to be run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that informant’s daughter went to school on 16.06.2004 at 07:00 AM like every day, but she did not return home till night. Thereafter, he started searching her. In the meantime, he got information that one Surendra Lohra (appellant) took away his daughter with intention to marry with her. Upon search, he also found that Manoj Lohra, Sukkhu Lohra and Jagarnnath Lohara were also involved in kidnapping of his daughter and also helped him to conceal her. Despite keeping search, no clue was found, hence, FIR was lodged. 4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered against the accused person for the offence under Section 366A/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against the accused person for the offence under Section 366A/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal. Thereafter, charges were framed for the offences under Sections 366A/34 and 376 of the I.P.C., which were denied by accused persons claiming to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against accused person, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Medical Report. Exhibit-2 : Written Report. Exhibit-2/1 : Endorsement (handwriting and signature on the statement of 164 Cr.P.C. of victim). Exhibit-3 : Formal FIR. Exhibit-3/1 : Signature on Formal FIR. Exhibit-1/1 : Requisition for medical test. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Medical Report. Exhibit-2 : Written Report. Exhibit-2/1 : Endorsement (handwriting and signature on the statement of 164 Cr.P.C. of victim). Exhibit-3 : Formal FIR. Exhibit-3/1 : Signature on Formal FIR. Exhibit-1/1 : Requisition for medical test. Exhibit-4 : Signature of victim girl on the statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. Exhibit-4/1 : Statement of victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Exhibit-4/2 : Certificate of learned Magistrate. 7. On the other hand, the defence has examined one witness named as Surendra Lohra (D.W.-1) and apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced by the defence. Exhibit-A, A/1 &A/2 : Letters. Exhibit-B : Certificate of Doctor. Exhibit-C & C/1 : Medical certificate for age proof. Exhibit-D : Signature of D.W.-1 on marriage certificate. Exhibit-D/1 : Signature of victim on marriage certificate. 8. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 366-A/34 and 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above. 9. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that there was love affairs between the victim girl and the appellant and both eloped with their consent. The victim had got married with the appellant at her own will. She was never kidnapped by the appellant. The appellant has not procured the victim for the purpose of illicit intercourse or for marriage with any other person. As such, no offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. is attracted against the appellant. It is further submitted that appellant has remained in custody about 5 years 9 months during trial of the case and maximum sentence awarded to him is 7 years R.I. 10. It is further submitted that since appellant has faced the agony of the trial more than 20 years and it is his first offence, hence if his conviction is upheld, then a lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence. He may be sentenced for the imprisonment already undergone instead of awarding substantive sentence which is imposed by the learned trial court. 11. Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, calling for any interference. 11. Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, calling for any interference. This appeal has no merit and fit to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the entire record along with impugned judgment, in the light of the argument raised on behalf of both side. 13. It appears that altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them the most important witnesses are P.W.-1 Neelam Chaudhary, P.W.4, Deepak Bharti (informant) and P.W.-5. (Victim). 14. P.W.-1 Neelam Chaudhary is the Doctor, who has examined the victim girl on 20.12.2004. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that on 20.12.2004, she was posted as Deputy Superintendent in Sadar Hospital, Ranchi and has examined the victim girl and found that the secondary character developed. During examination, vaginal smear was taken and sent to Pathology to see spermatozoa. X-Ray of wrist and pelvic was also advised and after receipt of Radiology and Pathology reports, which was received on 22.12.2004 and 01.01.2005, she has opined that the age of the victim girl between 15-16 years. Since, in the Pathology report, dead spermatozoa were found. In cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion of the victim girl was 19 years. 15. P.W.-4, Deepkar Bharti is the informant-cum-father of the victim. In the examination-of-Chief, he has stated that on 16.06.2004, at 07:00 AM, his daughter went to school, but she did not return. Upon search, he came to know that Manoj Lohra, Surendra Lohra (appellant), Jagarnath Lohra and Sukku Lohra (father of the appellant) have kidnapped his daughter. Appellant kidnapped her with the help of co-accused persons with intention to marry with the victim. After six month, the victim girl returned to the house of her elder father, then he went to police station. During cross examination, he has stated that his daughter was kidnapped for the purpose of solemnizing marriage, prior to occurrence, there was no visiting terms between the appellant and the victim girl. 16. P.W.-5 is the victim girl, according to her evidence, on 16.06.2004, at 07:00 AM, when she was going to school, on the way, appellant and other accused persons surrounded her with firearms in their hands. She was given intoxicating substance due to which she became unconscious. 16. P.W.-5 is the victim girl, according to her evidence, on 16.06.2004, at 07:00 AM, when she was going to school, on the way, appellant and other accused persons surrounded her with firearms in their hands. She was given intoxicating substance due to which she became unconscious. She was kept confined about 5-6 months in a room. Anyhow, she got chance and fled away to her elder father’s home. Thereafter, her father and elder father informed at police station. During cross-examination, she has stated that there was no love affair between victim and appellant. She was not living with the appellant as wife rather she was living separately. 17. It appears from the deposition of the victim and her father that both of them supported the prosecution story. Therefore, the finding of the trial court appears to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this appeal. 18. So far sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, admittedly out of seven years rigorous imprisonment, he has undergone imprisonment for about five years nine months during trial and after conviction. This is a case of the year 2004 and since, then appellant has suffered the agony of trial for the period of 20 years. Appellant has no criminal background, hence, the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant appears to be sufficient punishment. 19. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits. The conviction of appellant is upheld with modification in sentence to the extent that appellant is sentenced for the imprisonment already undergone by him instead of imprisonment awarded by learned Trial Court. 20. Appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond. Sureties shall also be discharged. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.