JUDGMENT J. N. Takru, J. - These are two connected appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 1738 of 1965 has been filed by Bhim Sen against his conviction and concurrent sentences of five years R.I., under Section 307 I.P.C., one years R.I., under Section 148 I.P.C. and one years R.I., under Section 323/149 I.P.C. while Criminal Appeal No. 2694 of 1965 has been filed by Bandhu Ram against his conviction and concurrent sentences of one years R.I. under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and nine months R.I. under Section 147 I.P.C. Two other persons, namely Noni Ram and Godhan, were also prosecuted along with the appellants. Out of them Godhan was given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted by the learned trial Judge. Noni Ram was, however, convicted and awarded concurrent sentences of one years R.I., under Section 323/149, and nine months R.I. under Section 147 I.P.C. He has not preferred any appeal, but as I took cognizance of his case under Section 439 Cr.P.C., I shall have occasion to refer to it also in the course of this judgment. 2. The case for the prosecution, stated briefly, is as follows: D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya is the step daughter of P.W. 1 Narain, and, at the time of the present incident, was over 18 years of age. Some time in this visit to her maika she complained to 1960 she was given away in marriage to Noni Ram, the son of Bandhu appellant. After her marriage she went to her husbands place several times and the last time she returned from there was some 8 or 10 days prior to the holi of 1964. On this visit to her maika she complained to her step-father that her husband and his people were not clothing and feeding her properly. A few days after the said Holi, Bundhu and Noni Ram along with Bhim Sen appellant, came to P.W. 1 Narains place for taking back D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya to her susaral. When they spoke to P.W. 1 Narain about it, he asked them to come again after 8 or 10 days as he wanted to get some clothes made for D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya before sending her to her susaral. The appellant agreed to this suggestion, and went back without D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya. 3. When they spoke to P.W. 1 Narain about it, he asked them to come again after 8 or 10 days as he wanted to get some clothes made for D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya before sending her to her susaral. The appellant agreed to this suggestion, and went back without D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya. 3. The prosecution proceeds: Two days later, i.e. on March 22, 1964 at about 4 p.m. D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya went, with her younger sister Nimmia, to scrape grass. Shortly afterwards, P.W. 1 Narain heard her shrieking and shouting that she was being forcibly taken away. He ran in the direction from which the shrieks and shouts were coming, and saw Noni Ram and Bhimsen dragging D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya and two persons pushing her from behind, while at a little distance from there Bundhu with four or five persons was waiting with a Rahlu. D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya was dragged to the Rahlu, lifted and placed on it, and, there after the Rahlu was driven off. P.W. 1 Narain raised an alarm, as a result of which P.W. 2 Sohan Lal P.W. 3 Pothi, Hori, Pati, Mulu, Bihari and some others arrived there, and tried to stop the Rahlu. P.W. 1 Narain told Bundhu that they should not take away D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya in that high handed manner but should come to his house and take her away from there in a becoming fashion. Bundhu not only did not agree to the proposal, but asked his companions to beat P.W. 1 Narain, whereupon, barring Bhim Sen, all of them assaulted him with fists and kicks and felled him to the ground. Thereafter the Rahlu was again driven off. P.W. 1 Narain got up and ran after it, and after he had run 20 or 25 paces, Bhim Sen who was sitting on the Rahlu fired at him, hitting him on his face, as a result of which he fell down. Thereupon the residents of the village who had come there on hearing the alarm of P.W. 1 Narain attacked the appellants and their companions with lathis and apprehended Bundhu and Noni Ram, while their companions succeeded in making good their escape with D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya. Thereupon the residents of the village who had come there on hearing the alarm of P.W. 1 Narain attacked the appellants and their companions with lathis and apprehended Bundhu and Noni Ram, while their companions succeeded in making good their escape with D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya. After the departure of the latter, the witnesses sent for a cot from the village, and placing P.W. 1 Narain on it, they took him along with Bundhu and Noni Ram to Police Station Sahi, where P.W. 1 Narain lodged the first information report, Ex. Ka-1 at 5.50 p.m. the same day. On the report being lodged, P.W. 12 P.L. Shah, S.O. started the investigation of the case, but it was his successor P.W. 6 Ranvir Singh who completed it and sub mitted a charge-sheet against the appellants and the others and they were, in due course, committed to the court of sessions to stand their trial. 4. The injuries of P.W. 1 Narain, Noni Ram and Bundhu were examined by p. W. 4 Dr. Ranvir Singh on March 23, 1964. P.W. 1 Narain was found to have sustained six injuries of which 4 were caused by fire arms and 2 were caused by some blunt weapon like lathi. One of these injuries was grievous. Noni Ram was found to have sustained 4 simple lathi injuries and Bundhu was found to have sustained 4 lathi injuries, of which two were grievous. 5. The appellants pleaded not guilty. Bhim Sen denied the prosecution case in toto. Bundhu and Noni Ram, however, set up a counter version. According to them they left D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya at the house of P.W. 1 Narain some days before Holi. After Holi when they went to bring her back, P.W. 1 Narain told them that he would send her after the wheat crop was harvested, and asked them to come again, but when they went there again, P.W. 1 Narain refused to send her (D.W. 1) with them. Three days thereafter Bihari, a resident of the same village as P.W. 1 Narain, came to their house and told them that unless they did something to bring back D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya, she would be married else where. On coming to hear this, they along with one Nand Ram left at once for the village of P.W. 1 Narain on a rahlu. On coming to hear this, they along with one Nand Ram left at once for the village of P.W. 1 Narain on a rahlu. They met D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya and her sister on the outskirts of the village. They questioned D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya, and she told them that she had sent Bihari to them with the message referred to above. Thereupon Bundhu got her sit on the rahlu and they started for their village while her (D.W. ls) sister went back. After the rahlu had gone a short distance, P.W. 1 Narain came there, and Bundhu enquired from him whether he would give D.W. 1 Smt. Chityas clothes and ornaments to her or not? P.W. 1 Narain said that he would do so provided they returned to his house and took her away from there. Bundhu did not agree to this and drove away the Rahlu. When they reached the culvert of Bahadurpur, P.W. 1 Narain and 5 or 6 of his co-villagers came there, stopped the Rahlu and started dragging P.W. 1 Smt. Chitya from it. Bundhu and Noni Ram jumped out of the Rahlu and prevented them from doing so, as a result of which there was a regular scuffle and marpit between them in the course of which both Bundhu and Noni Ram fell down. In the meantime on some bodys exhortation some one fired a gun but these appellants could not see who that person was. Thereafter they were apprehended by the villagers and taken to police station. 6. The prosecution produced P.W. 1 Narain, P.W. 2 Sohan Lal and P.W. 3 Pothi Ram to prove the incident and P.W. 4 Dr. Ranvir Singh to prove the injuries received by Narain, Bundhu and Noni Ram, in the course thereof, while the appellants examined D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya in their defence. The learned trial Judge rejected the defence evidence, and accepting that of the prosecution, held that it. had succeeded in proving its case against the appellants and Noni Ram beyond any reasonable doubt. 7. The learned trial Judge rejected the defence evidence, and accepting that of the prosecution, held that it. had succeeded in proving its case against the appellants and Noni Ram beyond any reasonable doubt. 7. There are thus two versions of the incident before me and it is my task to determine which of them accords with the truth and the probabilities of the case, bearing in mind the well-established rule of law that while the prosecution has to prove its case affirmatively, the appellants have only to raise a reasonable doubt in favour of their defence. 8. Now, as stated above, the only three eye-witnesses of the occurrence are P. W. 1 Narain, P.W. 2 Sohan Lal and P.W. 3 Pothi Ram. P.W. 1 Narain testified to the prosecution case as set out above from the beginning to the end, while P. W. 2 Sohan Lal and P.W. 3 Pothi Ram supported him as far as the actual incident was concerned. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that as all these three eye-witnesses were closely related, it was not safe to rely upon their testimony in the absence of any independent corroboration, more so as on the prosecutions own showing there were a number of other persons also present at that time. In my opinion Ithis contention is sound. An examination of the evidence of these three witnesses shows that they are all closely related to each other. The first witness P.W. 1 Narain denied that P.W. 2 Sohan Lal and P.W. 3 Pothi Ram were related to him. The second witness P.W. 2 Sohan Lal very grudgingly admitted that D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya was a cousin-sister of his by village relationship, though he admitted that P.W. 2 Pothi Ram was his brother. It was the third witness P.W. 3 Pothi Ram, who however gave away the show in this regard. Pie stated that P.W. 2 Sohan Lal was 'his brother and that their father and the father of P.W. 1 Narain were first cousins. Thus from the evidence of P.W. 3 Pothi Ram, it is clear that none of the three witnesses can be regarded as an independent witness. This conclusion \ receives some circumstantial support from the evidence of P.W. 2 Sohan Lal. That witness admitted in his cross-examination that on one occasion he was sent to escort D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya from her susaral to her maika. This conclusion \ receives some circumstantial support from the evidence of P.W. 2 Sohan Lal. That witness admitted in his cross-examination that on one occasion he was sent to escort D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya from her susaral to her maika. As such a : duty is usually entrusted to some relation of the parties, or to some person in whom they have trust and confidence, it is obvious that P.W. 2 Sohan Lal is either related to P.W. 1 Narain or is one who commands his confidence. In either case he becomes a highly interested witness. In this state of affairs one would have expected the prosecution to take special care to produce at least one eye-witness, who was unconnected with P.W. 1 Narain. But the prosecution neither produced any such witness nor offered any explanation for his non-production. There is thus considerable force in the contention of Sri B.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants, that had any of these witnesses been produced, he would not have supported the prosecution case. 9. Bundhu and Noni Ram examined D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya in their defence. This witness gave her age as 16-17 years, but P.W. 1 Narain in his examination-in-chief said that she was about 20 years of age at the time his deposition was being recorded, i.e. on July 26, .1965. Hence her age on the date of the occurrence i.e. March 22, 1964 was, and, must be held to have been, well over 18 years. She supported the version of her husband and father-in-law, as set out above, in its entirety. According to her, she sent message to her husband and his people to come and take her away or she would be married to some one else by her step-father. She also stated that when in response to that message, her husband and father-in-law came to take her away she accompanied them of her own free will and accord. I have examined the evidence of this witness very carefully, and find not a vestige of reason for not accepting it. She also stated that when in response to that message, her husband and father-in-law came to take her away she accompanied them of her own free will and accord. I have examined the evidence of this witness very carefully, and find not a vestige of reason for not accepting it. The only criticism which the learned counsel for the State had to offer against her evidence was that it was not consistent with the statements made by Bundhu and Noni Ram under Section 342 Cr.P. C. the inconsistency lying in the fact that while according to this witness she sent information to them on the very next day following the date of their visit to her step-fathers place for taking her away, her husband and father said that they received that information 2 or 3 days thereafter. This discrepancy is clearly of a very minor nature, and could easily have been due to lapse of memory on account of the passage of time. Learned counsel for the State also contended that as D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya had come straight from the custody of the appellants to give her evidence she was bound to depose in their favour. This contention cannot be accepted in the absence of any question to that effect having been put to the witness. Besides there is nothing improbable or unnatural in her statement that P.W. 1 Narain wanted to re-marry her, as he was not her natural father but was only her stepfather. Be that as it may the defence version receives sufficient circumstantial support from the prosecution case itself. As stated earlier the prosecution case was that when P.W. 1 Narain asked Bundhu, Noniram, and Bhimsen to come again after 8 or 10 days as he wanted to get some clothes made for his step daughter in the meantime, they accepted the suggestion and went away. It follows therefore that unless something had happened to make them change their minds they would not have returned within 48 hours. Therefore the fact that they did so, lends countenance to the defence version that they returned there so soon after their last visit because of the S.O.S. which they received from D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya. It follows therefore that unless something had happened to make them change their minds they would not have returned within 48 hours. Therefore the fact that they did so, lends countenance to the defence version that they returned there so soon after their last visit because of the S.O.S. which they received from D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya. I am, therefore, unable to find any reason for not accepting D.W. 1 Smt. Chityas statement that on the date and time in question she accompanied her husband and father-in-law of her own free-will and accord. On this finding there can, in my opinion, be no manner of doubt that P.W. 1 Narain and his co-villagers had no right to prevent Bundhu, Noni Ram and even Bhimsen from taking away D. W. 1 Smt. Chitya, and when they (i.e. P.W. 1 etc.) did so and in addition caused injuries to Bundhu and Noniram they clearly put themselves on the wrong side of the law and thus gave Bhimsen the right to fire at them, more so as the use of fists and kicks earlier had failed to shake off P. W. 1 Narain and his co-villagers, and there was no other way in which he could prevent them from abducting D. W. 1 Smt. Chitya from her husband. I am fortified in this view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Vishwanath, and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. p. 67. In that case the appellants sister was being compelled by force by her husband to go away from her fathers house. When the appellant saw that, he struck his brother-in-law with a knife in his abdomen, as a result of which he died. Thereupon the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his brother-in-law. The trial court acquitted him on the finding that he had the right of private defence of person. On appeal by the State, the High Court reversed that finding and convicted the appellant. The latter appealed to the Supreme Court and that Court reversed the judgment of this Court and held that as the husband was trying to take away his wife by force and against her wishes, he was guilty of abduction within the meaning of Section 100 (fifthly) I.P.C. and the appellant had, therefore, the right of private defence of person. The latter appealed to the Supreme Court and that Court reversed the judgment of this Court and held that as the husband was trying to take away his wife by force and against her wishes, he was guilty of abduction within the meaning of Section 100 (fifthly) I.P.C. and the appellant had, therefore, the right of private defence of person. The ratio of this decision, therefore, is the taking away by force of the person concerned and it matters little who the abductor is. The aforesaid rule applies with full force to the present case, as in this case P.W. 1 Narain and his co-villagers were trying to take away D.W. 1 Smt. Chitya by force and against her wishes. Bhimsen therefore had no right to prevent them from doing so, if necessary, by use of force. And as Bhim Sen fired only once he cannot even be held to have exceeded the right of private defence of person. Hence on a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the law applicable thereto, I am satisfied that the appellants and Noniram cannot be held guilty of any offence and their conviction and sentences must therefore be set aside. 10. This leave me with the consideration of the question whether this Court, having found Noni Ram not guilty, can order his acquittal although he has not filed any appeal. The answer to this question depends upon the language of Section 439 Cr.P.C. Under that section the High Court in the exercise of its re-visional jurisdiction can deal with the cases of non-appealing co-accused and can pass such orders as the facts and circumstances of the case warrant. In my opinion, therefore, although Noni Ram has not appealed, this Court is not precluded from passing such order as the facts and circumstances of the case and the interest of justice require. I am supported in this view by the decisions in Mangal Singh v. Emperor, 150 Indian Cases 21 and Tulsi Mahtu and others v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1928 Pat. 249. Hence although Noni Ram has not preferred any appeal Revision No. 643-66, in the exercise of this Courts revisional jurisdiction set aside his conviction and sentence also and direct his release forthwith unless he is required in some other connection. 249. Hence although Noni Ram has not preferred any appeal Revision No. 643-66, in the exercise of this Courts revisional jurisdiction set aside his conviction and sentence also and direct his release forthwith unless he is required in some other connection. The conviction and sentences of Bhim Sen and Bundhu having been set aside, their appeals are allowed. Bhim Sen was granted bail for the pendency of his appeal. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are hereby discharged. Bundhu Ram is in jail. He shall be released unless required in some other connection.