Z.K. Saiyed, J.

1. The present conviction Appeal has been filed by the appellant-original accused, under Section 374(2) of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 19.02.1999 rendered in Atrocity Case No. 45 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of thirty days, for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of thirty days, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of thirty days and for the offence punishable under Section 3(a)(xi) of the Atrocity Act and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of fifteen days.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Shankarbhai Gababhai Solanki was residing at Vadodara with his family. His daughter Laliben is married. His twin daughter named Tejal and Gita are aged about 15 years. Prior to two months of the incident i.e. on 22.07.1996, brother in law of babbhai i.e. present appellant-accused herein, who was living in front of the complainant was talking with his daughter Tejal. When the complainant came to know about this fact, the complainant censured him through Babbhai. On 22.07.1996 at about 7:30 in the morning, when the complainant, his wife, daughter Laliben and grandchild went outside of the house, his daughter Tejal found missing. They also inquired whereabouts of his daughter Tejal through relatives, but all in vain. Brother in law of the appellant-accused informed that appellant-accused went away from the house since morning. Therefore, the complainant suspected that the appellant-accused must have eloped with his daughter. Therefore, the complaint in this regard was filed by the complainant before the Makarpura Police Station and offence was registered against the appellant-accused.

3. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out and statement of the witnesses were recorded. On 13.12.1991, when the victim and appellant-accused appeared, panchnama of physical condition of the was drawn and both were sent for medical check-up to SSG hospital. The recovered muddamal was sent to the FSL for analysis. During the investigation, birth certificate of the victim was also obtained. Thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested.

4. After collecting the evidence by the Investigating Agency, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. As the said case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh. 8 against the appellant-accused and read-over and explained to the appellant-accused for the alleged offences and plea was recorded, wherein, appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.

7. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of the appellant-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein the appellant has denied the case of the prosecution and has pleaded his innocence. The appellant have submitted that a false case is filed against him.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with th