Anjana Prakash, J.

1. Heard.

2. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years by a judgment dated 5/6.5.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1982 by the Additional Sessions Judge- I, Siwan.

3. The case of prosecution according to the Complainant P.W. 4 is that her daughter who was aged about 12 years and dumb was taken away by the Appellant on the pretext for getting her treatment but she did not return.

4. The prosecution in all examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 are tendered whereas P.W. 9 is a formal witness. P.W. 4 is the Complainant and P.W. 7 is the husband of the Complainant whereas P.W. 2 is the younger brother of the husband of the Complainant and P.W. 1 is the independent witness. It appears from the evidence of these witnesses that the only material that has transpired is that after the victim was taken away by the Appellant on the pretext of her treatment, she became traceless.

5. On the other hand, the defence of the Appellant is that the child has become traceless after she was got treated by the brother-in-law of the Appellant. It also