Gopal Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Sections-366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years for the offence committed under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and also punished with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to serve further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years for the offence committed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of fine to serve further rigorous imprisonment of one year. However, it has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the fardbeyan of the informant Dinesh Yadav, the father of the victim, alleging therein is that her daughter, namely, Babita Kumari aged about 14 years went to her school on 12.09.2011 at about 10:00 A.M. along with Doli Kumari. Babita Kumari went to purchase chocolate with Shabanam Praveen from the shop of Janardan Ram and when she was coming to her school and reached near Voda’s tower towards north of shop, where a room was constructed in tower, Chandan Kumar, Munna Kumar and 3-4 unknown boys called her. When Babita Kumari reached there, she was locked inside the room. It is further alleged that Doli Kumari came back to her house after closing the school and told the informant that Babita Kumari is not in school, then informant searched his daughter. Bhushan Yadav told him that he has seen Babita Kumari going inside the tower. The informant went there but room was locked. It is also alleged that the room of the tower is the shelter of criminals and Chandan Kumar is anti-social element and has committed such type of offence several times. The informant has doubted that the accused had kidnapped his daughter with intent to kill.

4. On the fardbeyan the First Information Report was lodged and investigation proceeded. During investigation the victim and the accused were apprehended by Madhepura Police and Madhepura Police handed over them to the Investigating Officer. The statement of the victim was recorded and she was medically examined at Sadar Hospital, Saharsa. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet. On submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after framing of the charge trial proceeded.

5. During trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution who are P.W. 1 Ram Milan Yadav, P.W. 2 Raj Kishore Yadav, P.W. 3 Chandra Bhushan Yadav, P.W. 4 Dinesh Yadav, P.W. 5 Babita Kumari the victim, P.W. 6 Dr. Bibha Rani, the doctor who examined the victim and P.W. 7 the Investigating Officer, Sunil Kumar Bhagat in support of the case. The documentary evidence have been produced by the prosecution i.e. Ext. 1 written report, Ext. 1/1 signature of Parmanand Yadav on written report, Ext. 2 statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ext. 3 Medical Report, Ext. 4 Endorsement on written report, Ext. 5 Charge-sheet and Ext. 6 Formal First Information Report.

6. The defence of the accused is that he has falsely been implicated due to local politics and no occurrence as alleged was committed. However, a submission has been made on behalf of the appellant that it is a case of love-affairs.

7. However, the trial court taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant and sentenced as mentioned above.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the appellant has falsely been implicated and Shabanam Praveen has not been examined in this case to support the prosecution that she went along with the victim. It has further been contended that the kidnapping is alleged on the gate of the school but no independent witness has come to supp