ORDER

1. The appellant was convicted by the Court of Session for offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 368 read with Section 34 IPC. The other three accused were, however, acquitted. It cannot be disputed and has not been rightly questioned by learned State counsel that the conviction could only be under the aforesaid substantive provisions and not under Section 34 IPC. The appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine for offence under Section 363, IO years rigorous imprisonment and fine for offence under Section 366-A and rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine for offence under Section 368. The conviction on all the three counts was upheld by the High Court in the appeal. The sentence was, however, reduced for offence under Section 366-A to 6 years rigorous imprisonment and for offences under Sections 363 and 368 rigorous imprisonment to 5 years each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The fines imposed by the Court of Session were also set aside by the High Court. The appellant, aggrieved from the impugned judgment of the High Court, has approached this Court on leave having been granted. While granting leave, notice of enhancement of sentence has also been issued to the appellant.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant went to the school of PW 6 Priyadarshani Kumari on 26-3-1998. She was a student of 8th standard. The appellant knew PW 6 as his parents were working for the parents of PW 6. The appellant represented to the teacher PW 8 that he had been sent by the father of PW 6 to get her from the school since her grandfather was seriously ill. The appellant was about 19 years old at that time. On such representation being made, PW 8 permitted PW 6 to accompany the appellant. PW 6 gave her books to a co-student PW 3 for being delivered at her house. She was taken by him to a bus-stand stating that her grandfather had been taken from Samastipur to a hospital in Rosera. From Rosera she was taken on another bus for going to Siliguri and ultimately to Dhubri in Assam where the brother of the appellant resided along with his family. PW 6 was recovered on 1-4-1998 from the house of the brother of the appellant. The appellant was found guilty for the offences above-indicated and sentenced by the trial court, which was reduced by the High Court, in the manner stated above.

3. There is no serious dispute about the age of PW 6. She was about 14 years of age at the relevant time. In this background, first we would consider the charge against the appellant for offence under Section 366-A. The said provision provides that whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with the intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. We have gone through the evidence of PW 6 and other witnesses as also the judgment under appeal. It is evident that the ingredients of Section 366-A have not been proved against the appellant. There is no evidence at all to establish that PW 6 was induced to go to any place with the intent that she may be or likely to be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. On the contrary, the evidence shows that PW 6 was well treated at the house of the brother of the appellant. The medical evidence also does not show any kind of sexual harassment or any attempt or likelihood in that direction. In fact, there is no such finding against the appellant. In view of this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State has fairly and rightly not supported the impugned judgment insofar as it upholds the offence under Section 366-A IPC. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court confirming that of the Court of Session in convicting the appellant for offence under