imprisonment for four months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. As this appeal was registered as a jail appeal and the appellant did not engage any counsel on his behalf, by order dated 19.06.2024, this Court had appointed an Amicus Curie to pursue his cause in this appeal. However, later on, the appellant engaged his own counsel by filing Vakalatnama.

5. The facts relevant for consideration of the present appeal, in brief, are as follows:

i. On 11.06.2019, the mother of the victim girl lodged an FIR, inter-alia, alleging that her minor daughter (aged about 17 years) was kidnapped by the appellant Firdus Ali @ Rashidul Islam on her way to school on 10.06.2019. It has also been stated in the FIR that the family members of the victim girl searched for the victim girl, however, they could not find her. Later on, the appellant made a phone call to the informant stating that he had taken away her minor daughter (victim girl).

ii. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Bilasipara Police Station Case No.69/2019 was registered under Section 366A/342 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated.

iii. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant under Section 366A/342 of the Indian Penal Code.

iv. The appellant faced the trial remaining in custody.

v. After considering the materials available on record and after hearing both the sides, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 366/376/342 of the Indian Penal Code against the above-named appellant. When the said charges were read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.

vi. To bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution side examined seven witnesses including the victim girl. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. However, he did not reduce any evidence in his defence.

vii. Ultimately, by the judgement which has been impugned in this appeal the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner has already described hereinbefore in paragraph No.3 of this judgment.

6. Before considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through the evidence which is available on record.

7. The PW-1, who is the mother of the victim girl as well as the informant of this case has deposed that she knows the appellant and the occurrence took place about four months prior to date of her deposing before the Trial Court. She has deposed that the appellant gave them a proposal to marry their daughter (victim). However, the said proposal was not accepted by them and she has further deposed that on the date of occurrence of alleged offense, the victim girl went to college to attend her classes, however, she did not return back till 3.00 p.m. and on that day at about 4.00 p.m., the informant received a phone call from the appellant whereby he informed them that he had taken away the victim girl. She has further deposed that after about five days, the victim girl was recovered at Bishkhowa, Golokganj and thereafter, the FIR was lodged as per the story narrated to them by the victim girl. During cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion to the effect that the victim voluntarily accompanied the appellant.

8. PW-2, Keysar Ali, is the grandfather of the victim girl who in his deposition has stated that he is not an eyewitness to the incident. However, he has deposed that a few days prior to the incident, the appellant has approached them to marry the victim girl and the said proposal was rejected by them. He has also deposed that on the date of incident, a phone call was received by the first informant from the appellant whereby the appellant informed them that the victim girl was taken by him. He also deposed that after a few days, the victim was recovered from the appellant's custody.

9. P