ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.06.2005 and order of sentence dated 10.06.2005 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No. 183 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 622 of 2002 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 134 of 2002, Palamau at Daltonganj, Jharkhand whereby and where under both the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 366-A/34 of IPC and each of them were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) and in default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo for R.I. for a period of six months.

2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of the informant Arbind Oraon (P.W. 6) recorded by S.I. Ahmad Ali Officer In-charge of Sadar Police Station Baraiya Chowk on 16.05.2002 at 13.40 hours. The informant P.W. 6- Arbind Oraon stated on 16.05.2002 before the officer In-charge of Sadar Police Station that in the night of 10/11.05.2002 when all the family members were sleeping in the house, Reena Kumari, the minor sister of the informant eloped from the house. The informant and his family members started searching for Reena Kumari in the morning in their house and village and thereupon one Sanjay Oraon covillager informed the informant that both the accused persons namely Jay Kumar Oraon and Satendra Ram were seen moving near his house in suspicious manner in the night. Getting this information, the informant Arbind Oroan went to the house of accused Jay Kumar Oraon and enquired about him. His sister Saro Kumari informed him that Jay Kumar Oraon and Satendra Ram had come to her house in the night with Reena Kumari and in the early morning they all left the house. Accused Satendra Ram was also absent in his house. Informant Arbind Oraon suspected the hands of these accused persons in the alleged kidnapping of his minor sister.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Sadar P.S. Case No. 134 of 2002 dated 16.05.2002 u/s 366 A/34 of IPC was registered against both the accused persons. Sub Inspector Ahmad Ali took up the investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet No. 90/2002 dated 25.06.2002 against both the accused persons u/s 366-A/34 of IPC. Accordingly, cognizance was taken by the learned C.J.M., Daltonganj. After compliance of the provisions under section 207 of Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the court of Sessions. On 23rd day of August 2003 the charge u/s 366-A/34 of IPC was framed against both the accused persons. Charge was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Hemant Shikarwar, learned defence counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants

6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that both the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and the victim girl was major about 18 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and infact she was in love affair with the appellant no. 2- Jay Kumar Uraon, which is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. but, later on before the court during the course of the trial she completely backed out from her earlier statement recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. and she stated that she was sexually assaulted by both the appellants which was totally unbelievable and unreliable and not to be relied upon, but, the learned trial court discarded all the relevant evidences and convicted both the appellants u/s. 366 A /34 of IPC. The two FIR named witnesses na