Short Note : 1. Appellant had been convicted under section 366 IPC. On 12-3-1976 at about 2 p.m. Idibai (P W. 1), parasram (P.W. 2) and Lalsingh (P.W. 3) were returning from the jungle. On their way they met the appellant who along with two others were. armed with lathies and an axe. Appellant Diwan caught holds of the hands of Idibai and dragged towards a 'Nala'. Parasram (P.W. 2), Lalsigh (P.W. 3) tried to intervene but they were threatened by the appellant with dire consequences and they therefore ran away. 2. Held: The conviction of the appellant under section 366 IPC is based on the testimony of Idibai (P.W. 1), parasram (P.W. 2), and Lalsingh (P.W. 3) As regards the testimony of Idibai, the trial Court has not considered it safe to rely on her testimony. In view of the infirmities in her testimony pointed out by the trial Court, it would also not be safe to act on her testimony for holding the accused guilty of an offence under section 366 IPC. Parasram (P.W. 2) and Lalsingh (P.W. 3) claimed to be eye-witnesses. They deposed that after returning to the village they informed Sardar (P.W. 4) the brother of the prosecutrix. No report was, however, lodged by Sardar (P.W. 4) at the police station Sardar (P.W.4) has admitted that he is on inimical terms with accused. Lalsingh (P.W. 3) is married to the prosecutrix. Parasram (P.W. 2) is the nephew of the prosecutrix. He admitted that he had never gone with the prosecutrix in the jungle to collect logs of wood, prior to the date of incident. In these circumstances, in the absence of corroboration by reliable evidence it cannot be held that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of the accused in the crime. Appeal allowed.