A. M. BADAR, J.:–By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Barun Kumar Mandal @ Biro Mandal @ Barun Mandal is challenging the judgment and order dated 25.04.2013 and 08.05.2013 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Naugachia, in Sessions Trial No.919 of 2010, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as an accused.

2. Though this appeal pertains to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge, in view of order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge issuing notice to the appellant to show cause as to why he should not be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and why he should not be sentenced accordingly, the appeal came to be placed before us for consideration.

3. Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused, projected from the police report, can be summarized thus:—

(A) According to the prosecution case, on 02.06.2010 at about 10:00 PM, elder daughter of the first informant to whom we are referring as “X” for concealing his identify, came to be kidnapped by accused persons including the present appellant as well as Dhaniram Mandal, Maniram Mandal, Dharmendra Mandal, Jagdish Mandal, Jitendra Mandal, wife of Dhani Ram Mandal and Ajay Mandal. The said victim female child, at the time of the incident was 13 years of age. Her father “X”, therefore, lodged report to Police Station Naugachia on 03.06.2010 itself which has resulted in Crime No.85 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

(B) During the course of investigation, the victim female child returned on 15.06.2010. Her statement came to be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. She was subjected to the medical examination. Statement of other witnesses came to be recorded. The accused herein came to be arrested.

(C) On completion of investigation, the appellant/accused came to be charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 366A as well as 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court framed and explained the charges to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(D) In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses. PW 1 is the victim female child, PW 2 Anju Devi is the co-villager who had accompanied the victim child and had witnessed the incident of her kidnapping. PW 3 is the mother of the victim female child. PW 4 Narayan Mandal is the uncle of the victim female child. PW 5 “X” is the father of the victim female child who had lodged the First Information Report. PW 6 Tetri Devi is the aunt of the victim female child. PW 7 Nand Kishore Yadav is the Investigating Officer whereas PW 8 Dr. Sushila Choudhary, Medical Officer of the Sadar Hospital, Bhagalpur, had medically examined the victim female child on 16.06.2010.

(E) The defence of the accused as gathered from the line of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as well as from his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that of total denial. However, he did not enter in the defence.

(F) After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to convict the appellant/accused and to sentence him as indicated in the opening para of the judgment and he came to be convicted accordingly.

4. We heard Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde, the learned Advocate, who was appointed to act as Amicus Curiae, as none appeared for the appellant to prosecute the instant appeal. She vehemently argued that evidence of the victim female child regarding her kidnapping is duly corroborated by evidence of PW 2 Anju