C. R. PAL, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants assail the order of conviction and sentence dated 2-4-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi in Sessions Trial Case No. 11 of 1992 i. e. Sessions Trial No. 5/92 G. D. C. wherein each of the appellants has been convicted under Sees. 366 and 506, I. P. C. and has been sentenced under Sec. 366 to undergo R. I. for ten years. No separate sentence has been passed under Sec. 506 I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE case against the appellants is that on 15-3-199 1 while Manjula Pani, the victim girl (P. W. 3) along with Nandana Bebarta (P. W. 4) were returning from jungle carrying fire-wood those appellants appeared before them and caught hold of P. W. 3, she requested them to leave her stating that her marriage has already been settled at Berhampur. The appellants did not listen to her request and dragged her. In the process of dragging appellant No. 1 torn her blouse. When her companions tried to rescue her the appellants threatened them to kill showing a knife. They also threatened P. W. 3 to kill her if she would shout. At the time Israel Singh, (P. W. 1) who was plucking tamarind from a nearby tree and Rebika Jena, (P. W. 5) came there and asked the appellants to leave the P. W. 3. But they did not listen to their request and forcibly made P. W. 3 to sit on a motor cycle and took her to Bhalletota gagging her mouth. Sometime thereafter the father and brother of P. W. 3 along with some villagers reached at Bhaliatota and seeing them the appellants left that place. From Bhaliatota the victim was sent to Gandahati. On. 16-3-1991 coming to know that the O. I. C. , Ramgiri Police Station was camping at Parlakhemundi she came to Parlakhemundi and orally reported about the occurrence to him. The O. I. C. reduced the oral report into writing and took up investigation and ultimately filed charge-sheet against both the appellants under Secs. 342, 354, 366, 506/34, I. P. C. and after commitment the case came to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge on transfer for trial where the accused persons were charged for the offences under Secs. 363, 366 and 506,-I. P. C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

( 3 ) THE case of the appellant NO. 1 was that P. W. 3 was in love with him and when her marriage was settled at another place she wrote a letter to the appellant No. 1. intimating him that her marriage was going to be solemnised with another person and requesting him to somehow prevent the same, and accordingly she volunteered to go with the appellant No. 1, who took her to Jaharbandh. Subsequent to that the relations of P. W. 3 arid some of her villagers came there and there was an occurrence in which members of both the groups sustained injuries and they took away the P. W. 3 in them. Subsequently, after deliberation this case has been started with false allegations. The case of the appellant No. 2 is a complete denial of the allegations levelled against him.

( 4 ) THE prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom P. W. 3 is the victim girl, P. Ws. 1, 4 and 5 are witnesses to the occurrence of taking away the girl forcibly by the appellants and P. W. 2 is a witness to the seizure of the torn blouse of the victim girl and P. W. 6 is the brother of victim girl who rescued the girl from Bhaliatota and accompanied her to Parlakhemundi where P. W. 3 lodged the information, Ext. 1 and P. W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. The appellant No. 1 examined Solanti Jena as D. W. 1. He also produced the letter said to have been written by P. W. 3 marked TX for identification and other documents (Exts. A. B and C ). The trial Court after hearing both the sides found that P. W. 3 by the date of occurrence was more than 18 years of age and accordingly acquitted the appellants from the charge under Sec. 363. I. P. C. , but convicted them for the offences under Sec. 366, and under Sec. 506. I. P. C. and sentenced each of them thereunder as mentioned earlier.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearin