JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - In this case 10 persons were sent up for trial before the Sessions Judge of Fatehpur. One cithern, namely, Ram Bharosey, was charged u/s 366 IPC for abducting Smt. Girja, a married girl, on 28-7-1951 at about 10 p.m. from her father's house in village Naraini, Police Station Kishanpur, in the district of Fatehpur, with the intention or knowledge that she would be used for illicit intercourse. Three of them, namely, Manna, Sheo Bhukhan and Ram Manohar, who are brothers and maternal nephews of Ram Bharosey, were charged u/s 366/114 IPC for abetting the abduction of the girl, and the remaining six, namely, Ram Adhar, Jagatpal, Rampal, Ram Sewak, Nanku son of Raghunandan and Nanku son of Shiv Ram were charged u/s 368 IPC for wrongfully concealing Smt. Girja knowing that she was an abducted girl. Sheo Bhukhan was also charged u/s 368 IPC in addition to the charge u/s 366/114 IPC. 2. The prosecution story may be briefly stated as follows: Smt. Girja is the daughter of Sheo Bhajan. The accused Ram Bharosey is a distant cousin of Sheo Bhajan. They both lived in village Naraini and their houses were close to each other. Srnt. Girja was married in May l951 to one Devi Dayal of village Kewai and at the time of the alleged occurrence she was living with her father Sheo Bhajan in village Naraini. Sheo Bhajan's sister, Smt. Rama, was also living with her unmarried daughter Kumari Mainyya at the house of Sheo Bhajan on the date of the alleged occurrence. She had come some time before to join the marriage of Smt. Girja. Sheo Bhukhan, Ram Manohar and (sic) accused are the maternal nephews of Ram Bharosey and live in village Dewari, District Banda. Ram Bharosey is unmarried and there is no female in his house. Sheo Bhukhan, Ram Manohar and Manna often used to visit him and Smt. Girja sometimes used to go to the house of Ram Bharosey to cook food or do some other household work. It is said that on 28-7-1951 at about 10 p.m. the accused Ram Bharosey went to the house of Sheo Bhajan and asked him to send Smt. Girja and Kumari Mainyya to his house to cook food for the accused Sheo Bhukhan, Ram Manohar and Manna who had just arrived there. It is said that on 28-7-1951 at about 10 p.m. the accused Ram Bharosey went to the house of Sheo Bhajan and asked him to send Smt. Girja and Kumari Mainyya to his house to cook food for the accused Sheo Bhukhan, Ram Manohar and Manna who had just arrived there. Sheo Bhajan accorded to this request and sent Smt. Girja and Kumari Mainyya to the house of Ram Bharosey. When these two girls did not return for some time Sheo Bhajan became anxious and went to the house of Ram Bharosey in search of them. He found the house kicked. While he was making a search for (sic) he was informed by his own brother Ram Shanker and Swayamber Singh that they had seen Ram Bharosey, Sheo Bhukhan, Ram Manohar and Manna taking Smt. Girja and Kumari Mainyya towards the south. He could not find them and the next day he made a report at the Police Station Kisnanpur about the occurrence. In this report he also mentioned about the costly clothes and ornaments which Smt. Girja and Smt. Mainyya were putting on their persons at the time they were sent to the house of Ram Bharosey to cook food for him and his guests. This report was made against Ram Bharosey, Manna, Sheo Bhukhan and Ram Manohar and was registered u/s 366 IPC. Information of this report was sent to P.S. Khaga and P.S. Rajapur by the Station Officer of Kishanpur. The Rajapur police arrested Ram Manohar and Manna accused on 30-7-1951 at Dewari. The accused Sheo Bhukhan was found abconding. It is said that from the house of Ram Bharosey Smt. Girja and Kumari Munyya were taken to different places by the accused Ram Bharosey, Manna, Sheo Bhukhan and Ram Manohar forcibly on point of pistol and they were concealed by the accused Ram Adhar, Jagatpal, Rampal, Ram Sewak and the two Nankus between 28-7-1951 and 9-8-(sic). On 9-8-(sic) Smt. Girja accompanied by the accused Sheo Bhukhan presented an application (Ex. p. 25) before Sri Parduman Narain Singh, Special Magistrate at Rajapur, District Banda. The Magistrate sent them to the Station Officer, Police Station Rajapur, for necessary action, Srnt. Girja was taken in custody at Police Station Rajapur and was entrusted to P.W. (15) Badri Prasad after he had executed a supurdnama. p. 25) before Sri Parduman Narain Singh, Special Magistrate at Rajapur, District Banda. The Magistrate sent them to the Station Officer, Police Station Rajapur, for necessary action, Srnt. Girja was taken in custody at Police Station Rajapur and was entrusted to P.W. (15) Badri Prasad after he had executed a supurdnama. On 18-8-1951 Shri Brij Ballabh Singh, Station Officer Kishanpur, went to Rajapur and on the morning of 19-8-1951 he raided the house of Sheo Bhukhan accused and recovered Smt. Gaja along with some clothes alleged to belong to Kumari Mainyya from his hcuse. Smt. Girja was sent for medical examination to the Civil Surgeon, Fatehpur. After her medical examination she was entrusted to her father Sheo Bhajan on 21-8-1951. After further investigation the accused were sent up for trial. 3. The accused Ram Bharosey admitted in his statement that he was a cousin of Sheo Bhajan complainant and was living close to his house, He further admitted that the accused Sheo Bhukhan, Manna and Ram Manohar were his maternal nephews and were unmarried. He, however, denied mat on 28-7-1951 he had gone to the house ot Sheo Bhajan and had requested him to send his daughter Smt. Girija and his sister's daughter Kumari Mainyya to his house for the purpose of cooking food for him and his guests or that these two girls ever came to his house. 4. The accused Sheo Bhukhan in his statement admitted that Smt. Girja was recovered from his house in his presence on 19-2-1951. He, however, denied that he had abducted her either from the house of her father Sheo Bhajan or from the house of Ram Bharosey by threatening her with pistol. He stated that she came to his house all alone of her own accord and told him that she had been turned out by her husband and father-in-law on the charge of adultery. According to him she was 22 or 23 years old and had come to seek protection under him. He denied that he either married her or had sexual intercourse with her. 5. The accused Manna and Ram Manohar admitted that they were the real brothers of Sheo Bhukhan accused. They stated that they had been falsely implicated because they happened to be the real brothers of Sheo Bhukhan. He denied that he either married her or had sexual intercourse with her. 5. The accused Manna and Ram Manohar admitted that they were the real brothers of Sheo Bhukhan accused. They stated that they had been falsely implicated because they happened to be the real brothers of Sheo Bhukhan. They denied that they ever went to the house of Sheo Bhajan or that they abducted Smt. Girja from the house of Ram Bharosey or had any hand in it. The other accused also denied that they ever concealed Smt. Girja in their houses. 6. The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses in support of the case. Sheo Bhajan (P.W. 2), Marina Ram Pandey (P.W. 3), Suraj Din alias Bachha (P.W. 4), Swayambar Singh (P.W. 7), Ram Das (P.W. 8), Smt. Rama (P.W. 9) and Smt. Girja (P.W. 16) are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, whereas the rest of the witnesses are more or less formal. Dr. Kakkar who performed the medical examination of Smt. Girja was also examined before the committing magistrate and his deposition was tendered in evidence before the learned Sessions Judge. The accused did not produce any evidence in their defence. 7. The learned Sessions Judge after a consideration of the entire evidence was not satisfied that Smt. Girja was forcibly taken away by the accused Ram Bharosey, Sheo Bhukhan, Manna and Ram Manohar from the house of Ram Bharosey. He, however, believed the prosecution evidence of Ram Bharosey and the other three accused had gone to the house of Sheo Bhajan and had requested him to send his daughter. Smt. Girja and his sister's daughter Kumari Mainyya to the house of Ram Bharosey at about 10 p.m. to cook food for them and it was on this request that these two girls were sent by Sheo Bhajan with them. He was also not satisfied that the charge u/s 366 I.P.C. had been made out against the other six accused. In view of the above findings he found the accused Ram Bharosey guilty u/s 366 I.P.C. and convicted him of it and sentenced him to 3 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, and in default of payment of fine to 3 month's further rigorous imprisonment. He found the accused Ram Manohar, Manna and Sheo Bhukhan guilty u/s 366/109 I.P.C. for abetment and convicted them. 100, and in default of payment of fine to 3 month's further rigorous imprisonment. He found the accused Ram Manohar, Manna and Sheo Bhukhan guilty u/s 366/109 I.P.C. for abetment and convicted them. Sheo Bhukhan was sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine to 3 months' further rigorous imprisonment, and Ram Manohar and Manna to 2 year's rigorous imprisonment each. The remaining accused were acquitted. 8. It has been contended on behalf of the Appellant that even if the finding of the learned Sessions Judge was accepted no offence u/s 366 I.P.C. for abetment had been made out against the Appellants. It was argued that before the Appellants could be convicted u/s 366 I.P.C. it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that they had taken away Smt. Girja either by force or by some deceitful means and that the deceitful means should have been used against her and not against someone else. It was contended that according to the prosecution case Smt. Girja was not induced by the Appellants to accompany them for the purpose of cooking food for them but that she was sent by her father Sheo Bhajan on the request made to him by Ram Bharosey or the other Appellants. 9. In the circumstances if any deceitful means was employed by the Appellants it was employed not against Smt. Girja but against her father Sheo Bhajan. It was also contended that from the prosecution evidence itself it appeared that Smt. Girja cooked food for Ram Bharosey and his maternal nephews and, in the circumstances, it could not be said that any deceitful means had been employed towards Sheo Bhajan when it was represented to him that Smt. Girja and Kumari Mainyya were required at the house of Ram Bharosey for cooking food for him and his maternal nephews who had come there that night. Section 366 IPC says that whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. Section 366 IPC says that whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. It appears from an examination of this section itself that the force or the deceitful means should be employed towards the person sought to be abducted and not towards any other person, and where no force or deceitful means was used against the abducted person it is doubtful if the offence of abduction will be made out. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has relied on several cases in support of his contention that where the deceitful means is not employed against the abducted person but against someone else no offence of abduct'on can be made out. 10. The first case is reported in Volume 25 Cri. LC. 658 (Reg. v. Barrett). It was held in this case that an indictment u/s 56 of the 24 and 25 Vict. c. 100, for untawfully, by force or fraud taking away, enticing a way or detaining a child under the age of 14 with the intent to deprive the parent or guardian of the possession of such child, was not supported by evidence of force or fraud exercised upon the guardian of the child, nor upon any other person than he child so taken or detained; the force (sic) fraud must have been practised upon the child himself in order to bring the case within the statute. Section 56 of the 24 and 25 Vict. C. 100 runs as follows: Whoever shall unlawfully either by force or fraud, lead or take away or decoy or entice away or detain any child under the age of 14 years, with intent to deprive any parent, guardian, or other person having the lawful care or charge of such child, or the possession of such child, or with intent to steal any article upon or about the person of such child, to whomsoever such article may belong...shall be guilty of felony. 11. It was held in his case that as there was no evidence to prove that any force or fraud had been practised by the accused on the child it could not be said that the offence u/s 56 had been made out, and the accused was acquitted. 12. The next case is reported in Queen v. Kumal Das (1865) 2 W.R. Cr. p. 7. 12. The next case is reported in Queen v. Kumal Das (1865) 2 W.R. Cr. p. 7. It was held in this case that where no force or deceit had been proved to have been practised on the person abducted the offence of abduction was not made out and the accused could not be convicted of this offence. In this case the abducted girl was living with one Gopi Thakur. The accused took her away from his possession on payment of Rs. (sic) on the representation that she would be married to his brother. She was not married to the brother as represented but was sold for a sum of Rs. 175/-. It was held that the accused could not be convicted of the offence of abduction as no force or dacoit had been used towards the girl. 13. Another case is reported in Abdul Gaffur Khan Vs. The Emperor . It was held in this case that in order to establish a charge of abduction in order to murder, when the case was one of (sic) by deceitful means it was not enough for the prosecution merely to prove certain circumstances under which the abducted person was induced to go, nor even to prove a mere misrepresentation, but it must be proved that there was a mis-presentation that that particular misrepresentation was the result of a plan to murder and that it was one by which the abducted person was himself deceived and was induced to go; that where there was nothing on the record to establish that any misrepresentation, fraud or force was practised upon the abducted person it could not be said that the offence of abduction had been established. 14. In view the above decisions and also in view of the finding of the court below that no deceit or force was used towards the girl Smt. Girja, it could not be said that the offence of abduction u/s 366 IPC had been made out against the Appellants, even if it was accepted that they had requested Sheo Bhajan to send Smt. Girja with them to cook food for them and it was on this representation that she was sent by him. 15. Coming now to the merits of the case, I find that the prosecution story is somewhat improbable. 15. Coming now to the merits of the case, I find that the prosecution story is somewhat improbable. As already said above, Smt. Girja and Kumari Mainyya were sent by Sheo Bhajan along with the Appellants to the house of Ram Bharosey at about 10 p.m. to cook food for them. The evidence on the record is that Smt. Girja had been married only three months before and that she had returned to her father's house from that of her husband about a month before the occurrence. It appears from the first information report that she was putting on costly clothes and ornaments at the time she went to the house of Ram Bharosey to cook food for him and his guests. It appears to me somewhat improbable that if really she had been sent by her father at that late hour of the night to the house of Ram Bharosey for the purpose of cooking food for him and the other members of his family she could have gone there in costly clothes and ornaments. It is expected that in that case she would have gone there in ordinary clothes for the purpose of cooking food for Ram Bharosey and his relations. It further appears from the prosecution evidence that Ram Bharosey is a bachelor and so are the other three accused, namely, Sheo Bhukhan Ram Manohar and Manna. They are all young boys. Sheo Bhajan in his statement said that Smt. Girja occasionally used to go to the house of Ram Bharosey to do odd jobs whenever necessary. In the circumstances it is not unlikely that she became friendly with Sheo Bhukhan or the other accused. It appears that on the night in question she herself went to the house of Ram Bharosey and that explains as to why she was dressed in costly clothes and ornaments. In this case reference may be made to the statement of Badri (P.W. 15) who is the person to whom Smt. Girja was entrusted by the police when she had gone to make the application (Ex. P25) before the magistrate on 9-8-1951 and when she was sent by the Magistrate to the police for necessary action. Badri in his statement said that he entrusted Smt. Girja to Sheo Bhukhan after his release on bail because she wanted to live with him. P25) before the magistrate on 9-8-1951 and when she was sent by the Magistrate to the police for necessary action. Badri in his statement said that he entrusted Smt. Girja to Sheo Bhukhan after his release on bail because she wanted to live with him. He further stated that she had told him that she had been turned out by her father-in-law and mother-in-law on the charge of adultery. This statement of Badri supports the statement of Sheobhukhan accused that Smt. Girja came to him of her own accord and told him that she had been turned out by her husband and father-in-law on the charge of adultery. There does not appear any satisfactory reason to disbelieve the statement of P.W. Badri. If Smt. Girja had really been taken away forcibly by Sheo Bhukhan or the other accused, then there is no satisfactory explanation as to why she expressed the desire to Badri that she should be sent to Sheo Bhukhan. In that case she would have asked Badri that she should be restored to her husband or to her father. I have already mentioned above that so far as the story of Smt. Girja about her being taken away forcibly from the house of Ram Bharosey on the point of pistol is concerned, it has not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. It also appears from the evidence of Smt. Girja that she was taken from place to place from the house of Ram Bharosey and ultimately she appeared before the magistrate on 9-8-1951. There is no doubt that she had ample opportunity to go out or make a complaint that, she had been abducted by the Appellants and had been forcibly detained by them. There is no, satisfactory explanation as to why she did not make that complaint at any stage and not even before the magistrate when she had herself appeared there. It may be said on behalf of the prosecution that she did not make the complaint before the magistrate because she was accompanied by Sheo Bhukhan and was therefore under his influence. There may be some force in this contention but there is no explanation as to why she did not disclose the true story after Sheo Bhukhan had been sent to jail and she had been given in the custody or supurdari of Badri. There may be some force in this contention but there is no explanation as to why she did not disclose the true story after Sheo Bhukhan had been sent to jail and she had been given in the custody or supurdari of Badri. It cannot be said that even at that time she was afraid of Sheo Bhukhan and on that account did not tell the true story to Badri or to anyone else. 16. In the circumstances, it appears to me very doubtful that Smt. Girja was taken away from her house by force or deceitful means. The charge of abduction is, therefore, not made out against the Appellants. 17. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentences of the Appellants are set aside. As they are on bail they need not surrender; their bail bonds are discharged.