JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Originally the appeal was filed by appellants namely, Eto Oraon, Kamal Oraon and Radhey Oraon, but appellants namely, Eto Oraon and Radhey Oraon have died during pendency of this appeal and their appeal has been abated vide order dated 06.12.2024 and the present appeal survives only with respect to appellant namely, Kamal Oraon. 3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 18.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (FTC-Xth), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. No. 251 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the appellant along with co-convict have been held guilty for the offence under Section 363 & 366 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of five years for the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 12.8.1992, accused Bahura Oraon allegedly kidnapped the informant’s daughter with intention to compel her for marriage. When the informant went to the house of Bahura Oraon in search of his daughter, his parents told not to lodge any case, promising to produce her after Dashara. When they failed to do so, the informant again went to them and made request, where accused Radhey Oraon, Kamal Oraon and Eto Oraon were present, who threatened him of dire consequences, if he lodged a case. Out of fear, the informant didn’t go to the police station and requested the villagers to intervene and get his daughter returned from the accused persons, but when he failed to do so, he filed written report at the Chanho Police Station. 5. Accordingly, on the basis of written report, Chanho P.S. Case No. 124 of 1992 dated 26.10.1992 was registered on the basis of written report of the informant for the offences under Sections 363 / 366 of the I.P.C. against the accused Bahura Oraon and formal FIR was drawn. 6. 5. Accordingly, on the basis of written report, Chanho P.S. Case No. 124 of 1992 dated 26.10.1992 was registered on the basis of written report of the informant for the offences under Sections 363 / 366 of the I.P.C. against the accused Bahura Oraon and formal FIR was drawn. 6. The police, after investigation, has submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance of the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the I.P.C. against the above accused persons along with accused Bahura Oraon. After commitment of the case to the court of Sessions, Sessions Trial No. 251 of 1993 was registered. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above 7. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and order has submitted that there is simple allegation of providing assistance in kidnapping of a minor girl by the present appellant. Admittedly, the victim girl was under love affairs with the co-accused Bahura Oraon and also eloped with him to solemnize marriage with him, which has been admitted in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the victim girl. No specific role except assistance provided in the taking away the minor girl has been proved by the prosecution against the present appellant. The victim girl was not recovered from the possession of the appellant nor kept / concealed by this appellant at any point of time. The appellant has already been remained in custody during trial of the case for eight months and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. It is surfaced in the impugned judgment that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and never convicted for any offence and now more than two decades have been elapsed from the date of commission of alleged offence and appellant has not been involved in any other criminal activities. Therefore, the conviction for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. against the appellant is absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of evidence available on record and appellant deserves acquittal from the said charge. So far offence under Section 363 I.P.C. is concerned, the appellant deserves leniency in the matter of sentence and his sentence may be reduced to the extent of period already undergone by him. 8. So far offence under Section 363 I.P.C. is concerned, the appellant deserves leniency in the matter of sentence and his sentence may be reduced to the extent of period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant, who was active not only in kidnapping the victim girl from her lawful guardianship, but also the girl was kidnapped / abducted to solemnize marriage with the friend of this appellant against her will in forceful manner. Therefore, the appellant deserves no leniency in the matter of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. This appeal is fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 10. It appears that in course of trial, altogether 08 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled under Sections 363 / 366 of the I.P.C. against the appellant and others. 11. The most important witness is the victim girl herself, who has been examined as P.W.-4, whose statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. She has reiterated the same thing during trial also. Medical report of the victim also shows that there was no external injury, the hymen was intact and perineum was lax. On examination, uterus was found anteverted. I.O. of the case has also not been examined and other witnesses are hearsay witness. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussions of testimony of victim, it is quite clear that the victim herself has attributed no specific role against the appellant except providing assistance. At best commission of offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. only is attracted against the appellant. So far offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the ingredients of which has not been proved against the appellant. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. is hereby set aside, but conviction for Section 363 of the I.P.C. is upheld with modification in sentence reducing the same to the imprisonment already undergone. 13. In view of above, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction and sentence of the appellant. 14. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. is hereby set aside, but conviction for Section 363 of the I.P.C. is upheld with modification in sentence reducing the same to the imprisonment already undergone. 13. In view of above, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction and sentence of the appellant. 14. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged. 15. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 16. This Court appreciate the able assistance provided by learned Amicus Curiae in disposal of the case. 17. Therefore, this Court directs the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi to pay Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) to the learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Pragati Prasad, as her remuneration. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.