Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.67 of 1996 *** Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12th February, 1996, passed by the Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1992. *** Ganesh Paswan alias Buddhu Paswan S/o Gajju Paswan, resident of Naya Tola, Daharia, P.S. Katihar, District- Katihar …Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Jageshwar Paswan S/o late Rasho Paswan, resident of village- Dilli Diwanganj, P.S. Amdabad, District- Katihar …Respondents *** For the appellant : Mr. Sushanta Kumar Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. R. B. Roy ‘Raman’, A.P.P. *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under section 366 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by the Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1992, by judgment dated 12.02.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W.1 (Jageshwar Paswan) is that the appellant had come to his house along with his wife and taken away his daughter for the purpose of showing her to a boy, who was to be her prospective husband but she did not return and he later learnt that his daughter had been married to one Kesho Singh after having been sold to him. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 is the informant and P.W. 6 is his wife. P.W.2 is the doctor, who medically examined the alleged victim and found her between 18-19 years. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.8 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the 2 statement of the girl under section 164 Cr. P. C. P.W. 3 and 4 have been declared hostile, whereas, P.W. 5 has been tendered. 4. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that the only allegation against the appellant is that he had taken away the alleged victim to his house whereafter she returned two months later. As per the opinion of the doctor, the victim was aged between 18-19 years and, therefore, she was major. In absence of the examination of the alleged victim, who alone could have testified as to whether she had been forcefully kidnapped, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant under section 366 Indian Penal Code. 5. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under section 366 Indian Penal Code. He is also discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 21st June, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-