VINOD KUMAR SINHA, J.

Both the appellants stand convicted under Section 366A/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the I.P.C.’) and had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 366A and R.I. for six months under Section 120B of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were said to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story enumerated from the FIR is that the daughter of the informant (P.W.3) went to the tube well to wash the plates and since then she is traceless and in spite of search, she could not be traced out. Further prosecution case is that in the morning, Ramesh Mehta and Bhola Mehta P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively came and narrated him that they had seen the accused persons lifting Pinki Kumari at about 9.00 P.M. and carrying her forcibly towards Bandh and they had also covered the mouth of Pinki Kumari and they have also stated that they could not utter anything out of fear. Further prosecution case is that they searched the victim girl to the nearby places but they could not traced her out. It is also prosecution case that due to previous enmity, Sattan Mehta had earlier threatened that he would kidnap his daughter and they in conspirac