- (1.)Admit. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal.
(2.)The present appellant has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 9.4.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2013, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under sec. 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further S/I for one year. The appellant is further convicted for the offence under sec. 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further S/i for two years.
The appellant is also convicted under section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo further S/I for two years, which is impugned in this appeal.

(3.)The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
3.1 That the daughter of the complainant Shilpa was pursuing her study in Std. 10 by staying at her elder brother's place at Rajpipla. On the day of incident, i.e. 11.4.2013 at around 9.00a.m. the son of the complainant i.e. Rajendra had come to the place of complainant for taking the delivery of a truck from his place of residence i.e. Junaghata. At that time, the son of the complainant had received a call on his mobile from his wife Premila, in which, the son of complainant had been given to understand that the victim had accompanied with her to purchase grocery in the market. However, on her way back to home, the original accused no. 1 alleged to have arrived at the spot and took away the prosecutrix on his bike. The daughter-in-law raised alarm but no avail. On hearing about this, the complainant, her husband and son had inquired for whereabouts of prosecutrix. However, she was not found out. It has been further the case of the prosecution that the accused no. 1 kidnapped the prosecutrix in past also. However,the prosecutrix was found out and brought back to her parental house with the help of the family members. The complainant then gone to the place of Arvindbhai as he had helped on earlier occasion in finding out the prosecutrix.

However, prosecutrix was not found out and thus they had tried to inquire at the place of the sister of accused and her husband, which was allegedly found locked. Therefore, the offence came to be registered. The Investigating Officer, on completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla. The case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 25/2013.