JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Misra. These two revisions are taken up together for the sake of convenience Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 126/1967 and the two Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 1967 along with four others were tried for offences under Sections 341 and 366, Indian Penal Code for alleged kidnapping of Sushama (p.w. 7), a minor girl aged about 16 from the lawful guardianship of her mother Mali Bewa (p.w. 1) on 2-2-1965. One of the accused was acquitted by the trial Court, while the remaining six were convicted for the offences charged with and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 366, Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was awarded u/s 341, Indian Penal Code. Against this conviction, two separate appeals were preferred to the learned Sessions Judge one by the Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1967, and the other by the remaining five accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted three of the Appellants in the latter appeal, while he altered the conviction to one u/s 363, Indian Penal Code in respect of the remaining Appellants in both the appeals and modified the sentence of each to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 109/-. Against this decision of the learned Sessions Judge, two separate revisions have been filed,-one by Natabar, Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1967, and the other, by Magu Rautray and Debendra Rautray Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 1967. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2-2-1965, Petitioners in both the revisions along with the accused who were acquitted by the Courts below, kidnapped p.w. 7 from the lawful guardianship of p.w. 1. because p.w. 1 had arranged the marriage of p.w. 7 with one Dayanidhi which was not approved by her deceased husband's brother, Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1967 and other agnates and relations including the two Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 1967. The defence, plea was a complete denial of the occurrence, and it is alleged that they were implicated in a false case at the instigation of their entypies. They also, pleaded that Natabar, Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1967, being the Karta of the joint family of which p.ws. The defence, plea was a complete denial of the occurrence, and it is alleged that they were implicated in a false case at the instigation of their entypies. They also, pleaded that Natabar, Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1967, being the Karta of the joint family of which p.ws. 1 and 7 are members, was the lawful guardian, and as such, even if the prosecution case is believed there is no removal from the, lawful guardianship to constitute the offence of kidnapping. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Natabar Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1967 assails the conviction and sentence mainly on two grounds. It is contended by him that so far as he is concerned, there is practically no evidence to prove that he participated in taking p.w. 7 from the custody of p.w. 1, even if it be assumed that the prosecution version is true. Secondly it is urged that being the Karta of the joint family, Petitioner was the lawful guardian and as such, there can be no question of taking p.w. 7 out of the lawful guardianship of p.w. 1. 4. To constitute the offence of kidnapping u/s 363, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the taking or enticing away of a minor aged under 18 if a girl, or under 16 if male, and such taking should be from the lawful guardianship. That p.w. 7, the victim in this incident is under 1a years of age and is the daughter of p.w. 1 is not disputed. There is also no dispute that Natabar and the deceased father of p.w. 7 were brothers and members of a joint family. It cannot be disputed that under the Hindu Law, the father, and after his death, the mother is the natural guardian of the minor children, unless the father had appointed anyone else as guardian. It is not the case of the defence that the deceased father of p.w. 7 had appointed Natabar as guardian. Necessary, therefore, as has been found by the learned Sessions Judge, p.w. 1 was the lawful guardian. though these ingredients are established, Natabar can be convicted of an offence u/s 363, Indian Penal Code only, if prosecution successfully proves that he participated in the taking of p.w. 7 from the lawful guardianship. Necessary, therefore, as has been found by the learned Sessions Judge, p.w. 1 was the lawful guardian. though these ingredients are established, Natabar can be convicted of an offence u/s 363, Indian Penal Code only, if prosecution successfully proves that he participated in the taking of p.w. 7 from the lawful guardianship. The word "take" means to cause to go, to escort or to get into possession. In other words, to constitute taking, a person must have taken an active part in the minor leaving the custody of the lawful guardian. The only evidence against Natabar is that he had disapproved the decision of p.w. 1 to get p.w. 7 married to Dayanidhi, and on the date of occurrence had applied and obtained an order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure restraining performance of such a marriage on the ground that it was likely to lead to breach of the peace. This conduct of his by itself cannot amount to sufficient proof of his actually participating or taking an active part in the removal of p.w. 7 from the custody of p.w. 1. Some overt act by Natabar in the taking of p.w. 7 must be proved to show that he also participated in that act. Learned Counsel appearing for the State concedes that there is no specific evidence on the prosecution side to show that Natabar took any part in the taking of p.w. 7 from the custody of p.w. 1. He, however, states that there is the general statement of the p.ws. that all the accused participated in the taking. When on this general statement" some of the accused have been acquitted, there is absolutely no ground for convicting Natabar on such evidence in the absence of proof of any overt act on his part in the taking. In these circumstances, the conviction of Natabar not being supported by evidence cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 5. So far as Magu and Debendra, Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 1967 are concerned, the concurrent finding of the Courts below is that they physically caught hold of p.w. 7 and forcibly took her away from the custody of p.w. 1. There is also evidence that when p.w. 1 protested, she was given a push. Learned Counsel appearing for these two Petitioners assails their conviction mainly on two grounds. There is also evidence that when p.w. 1 protested, she was given a push. Learned Counsel appearing for these two Petitioners assails their conviction mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that Natabar, the Karta of the joint family being the lawful guardian, even if the prosecution case is accepted, there is no removal of p.w. 7 from the lawful guardianship of p.w. 1. Secondly, it is contended that the Courts below have erred in accepting the testimony of the p.ws. and rejecting the defence plea of the case having been falsely instituted and the instigation of their enemies. 6. So far as the first point is concerned, already it has been dealt with above and the contention that Natabar was the lawful guardian cannot be accepted, because under the Hindu law, the mother is the natural guardian of the minor after the death of the father, and it is not the defence case that deceased father of p.w. 7 had appointed Natabar as guardian of his minor child. 7. Coming to the second point, it is argued that the prosecution case should have been disbelieved due to various circumstances elicited from the prosecution witnesses. In this connection, it is pointed out that Borne of the p.ws. have admitted existence of party feelings in the village, that subsequent to the date of occurrence, p.w. 7 was married to Dayanidhi which was not objected to by the Petitioners; that p.w. 10 has stated that there was no proposal for marrying p.w. 7 to his brother who was already married and that the testimony of the p.ws. in many respects is discrepant in material particulars. It has also been pointed out that the prosecution is guilty of suppression of evidence and that the two constables who met p.w. 7 on the next day, while she was being brought back some were deliberately with held from the witness box. in many respects is discrepant in material particulars. It has also been pointed out that the prosecution is guilty of suppression of evidence and that the two constables who met p.w. 7 on the next day, while she was being brought back some were deliberately with held from the witness box. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that in a revision, it is not open to the High Court to interfere with findings of fact on the ground of improper appreciation of evidence and credibility or interestedness of witnesses though it cannot be said that the powers of the High Court in revision are limited to questions of law alone, it is a well settled principle that ordinarily the revisional Court case not interfere with findings of fact or make a re-appraisal of the evidence. In special and exceptional circumstances, the Court in exercise of its revisional powers is entitled to go into questions of fact where acceptance of the opinion of the Courts below is likely to lead to miscarriage of justice or where the consonance of the Court is satisfied in the broad interests of justice that the conviction is not sustainable. So also, revisional Court may interfere with question of fact where the appellate Court has simply endorsed a finding of fact of the trial Court without applying its mind or testing the evidence on accepted principals relating to appreciation of evidence. The point, therefore, is whether in the present case, such exceptional circumstances exist which would justify re-appreciation of the evidence or interference with a finning of fact. Apart from the testimony of other eye witness, there is the categorical evidence of p.ws. 1 and 7 that Magu and Debendra caught hold of the hands of p.w. 7 and dragged her. There is nothing to show why these two witnesses would falsely attribute this part of the occurrence to these particular accused. Both the Courts below have elaborately dealt with the evidence about the actual part played by these two Petitioners, accepted the evidence after taking into consideration the grounds put forth now and come to the finding that these two Petitioners actually used physical force in dragging p.w. 7 and taking her away from the custody of p.w. 1. Both the Courts below have elaborately dealt with the evidence about the actual part played by these two Petitioners, accepted the evidence after taking into consideration the grounds put forth now and come to the finding that these two Petitioners actually used physical force in dragging p.w. 7 and taking her away from the custody of p.w. 1. It may be that the other accused were silent participants or connivers at such taking, but the Courts below found the evidence against four of them insufficient and acquitted them. So far as Natabar is concerned, I have already dealt with the evidence against him. The finding of fact, as far as these two Petitioners are concerned, has been arrived at on a detailed appreciation of the evidence. When both the Courts below have concurrently come to a definite conclusion that these two Petitioners used physical force to take away p.w. 7 from the custody of p.w. 1, I see no reason to interfere with this finding of fact as it has not been shown to me that the finding is unreasonable or wholly unwarranted by the material on record. It is not a case where the finding is based on no material, nor can it be said that the appellate Court has simply endorsed the finding of the trial Court. 8. In the result, Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1967 is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against Natabar Rautray, Petitioner therein are Bet aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Criminal Revision No. 151 of 1967 is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed