JUDGMENT : Aikman, J. The nine appellants have been convicted of abducting Mussammat Kulla with intention to cause, her to be secretly and wrongfully confined and have been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each, under section 365 of the Penal Code, 1860. Mussammat Kulla was the widow of one Gulab Rai. After Gulab Rai's death she continued to live for sometime in the house of her step-son, Nitanand, one of the appellants. She afterwards left that house and took up her abode with one Merai Kurmi of the same village with whom she had contracted an intimacy and to whom she bore a child. It is stated that she went through a form of marriage with Merai. This was resented by her stepson and her husband's relations. 2. On the 30th September, 1902, the appellants attacked Merai's house, inflicted a beating on him and his two brothers and carried off Kulla and her child to Nitanand's house. For this attaok on Merai and his brothers the accused were previously prosecuted and convicted; they were not then charged with the abduction of Kulla,’ probably because Kulla could not be traced. Kulla's brother and Merai have since tried in vain to discover the woman's whereabouts. As no trace of her could be found, the brother has instituted the present prosecution. In arguing the appellants' case their learned pleader contended that as the accused might, on the facts elicited in the former trial, have been then charged with the offence of which they have now been convicted the previous trial is, under the provisions of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a bar to their being tried, again on this occasion. I am unable to sustain this plea. In my opinion the case was one falling under section 235, sub-section (1) of the Code, and therefore having regard to sub-section (II) of section 403 the previous trial is not a bar to the present prosecution. This disposes of the legal argument. 3. It was argued on the merits that the conviction of the appellants is against the weight of evidence. I have considered the evidence, and in my opinion the learned Judge gives good reasons for believing the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, which, if true, amply substantiates the charge. This disposes of the legal argument. 3. It was argued on the merits that the conviction of the appellants is against the weight of evidence. I have considered the evidence, and in my opinion the learned Judge gives good reasons for believing the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, which, if true, amply substantiates the charge. I was addressed also on the question of sentence, but looking to the fact that no trace of the missing woman has been found since she was carried off by the accused upwards of two years ago, I am not prepared to interfere. If the woman has not been made away with, her whereabouts are being concealed. For the above reasons I dismiss the appeal.