Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—In the present criminal appeal filed under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant has put to challenge judgment and order dated 25.01.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 465 of 2017 CIS No. 465 of 2017, arising out of Sasaram (Model) P.S. Case No. 812 of 2016, whereby the respondent No. 2 has been acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. We have heard Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The appellant (PW-4) is the father of the victim (PW-5) and is the informant of the said Sasaram (Model) P.S. Case No. 812 of 2016.

4. It is the prosecution’s case as disclosed in the written information given by the informant (PW-4) on 16.07.2019 to the Officer In-charge of Model Police Station Sararam that the victim, aged about 16 years and 6 months was staying with her mother, brother and sister in the house of her maternal grandmother and was studying there. She had gone with her mother to attend a marriage ceremony in a neighbouring house on 13.07.2016. It was, however, noticed that since 5:00 pm. of 13.07.2016, the victim was missing. The respondent No. 2 happened to be the driver of a vehicle owned by the maternal uncle of the victim. The informant suspected that respondent No. 2 might have enticed her and taken her away with an intention to solemnize marriage with her.

5. It transpires from the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-6) as mentioned in the impugned judgment and order that on a secret information he recovered the victim from a place called ‘Khargar More’. The Investigating Officer disclosed in his evidence that he had not recorded statement of the victim under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Investigating Officer further deposed that the victim had not made any allegation against respondent No. 2 in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded on 21.03.2017 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, wherein she disclosed that she had gone with respondent No. 2 at her sweet will and was living with him. She had returned to Sasaram a day ago and wanted to go with her grandfather. The police upon completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against respondent No. on 27.04.2017. After cognizance having been taken of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram. Charge came to be framed under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. As respondent No. 2 pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial.

6. During the course of trial the prosecution examined six witnesses including the victim (PW-5), the informant (PW- 4), the Investigating Officer (PW-6), maternal uncle of the victim (PW-1), mother of the victim (PW-3) and sister of PW-3 as PW-2.

7. The victim (PW-5) in her testimony at the trial, for the first time, deposed that respondent No. 2 had kidnapped her, with the use of force in a car. She further deposed that she had become unconscious and when regained consciousness she had found someone speaking to administer a sedative to render her unconscious. When she regained consciousness second time, she found her mouth and legs tied with clothes. Further, she was being assaulted by the respondent No. 2 and his accomplice(s). She further deposed that respondent No. 2 was planning to sell her. She also deposed that she was forced and threatened by respondent No. 2 and his advocate to make incorrect statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she had gone with him (respondent No. 2) voluntarily. Furthermore, she deposed that respondent No. 2 had told her (the victim) that crimina