JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Rewariya resident of village Bamanbas has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur Camp, Gangapur City, under section 366 and 147 I.P.C. and sentenced thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for four year and six months respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Rewariya along with 25 others accused constituting themselves into an unlawful assembly with the object of abducting Smt. Rampati from her house in village Dhoonakpura, went to the said village on July 8, 1973, about 4 a. m. forcibly removed Rampati from her house, put her in the bus waiting nearby and carried her away to village Bamanbas. The report of the occurrence was lodged at the police station concerned that very morning at 9.20 a. m. The police was unable to recover Rampati for a long time. It is alleged that P. W. Mangva husband of Rampati was thus compelled to comply with the demand of Rewariya and pay him a ransom of of Rs. 7,100/- for the restoration of his wife. He paid Rs. 7,100/- to Rewariya through one Dariba who got Rampati back. It may be mentioned here that the matter was settled information by the Panchayat of the Meenas a community to which the parties belong. 3. After Rampati had thus returned to her husband's house in the month of August, 1973, the police also became conscious of their duty to do something towards the investigation of the case. It is alleged that the Investigation Officer record the statement of Rampati under section 161 Cr.P.C. on September 12, 1977. Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on November 1, 1973. 4. The police put up a final police report for the trial of 25 persons including Rewariya reporting that two of culprits were absconding and therefore could not be arrested. 5. The learned Sessions Judge tried all the 25 accused including Rewariya under various offences said to have been committed in the course of this transaction. The charges framed against Rewariya were for the offences of rioting, house trespass, abduction, theft and punishable under sections 148, 452, 366, 380 and 376 I.P.C. respectively. 6. All the accused except Rewariya were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. The charges framed against Rewariya were for the offences of rioting, house trespass, abduction, theft and punishable under sections 148, 452, 366, 380 and 376 I.P.C. respectively. 6. All the accused except Rewariya were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Even Rewariya was acquitted of the charges under ' section 376, 380 and 452 L P. C. He was convicted under sections 366 and 147 I.P.C. As already indicated Rewariya has appealed from his conviction and sentence under section 366 and 147 I.P.C. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted Rewariya only on the strength of oral evidence of Rampati, her husband Mangya and her father-in-law, Jaipal. The Other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution did not support the prosecution story in that they did not name Rewariya or for that matter, any other accused as the culprits who had committed the crime of abduction. 8. Rampati is a woman with some beckground which is relevant to be mentioned here. She was originally married to one Thandi, who died after giving a child to her. According to the custom of Meena community, she was then tied, in a sort of matrimonial alliance, known as Mata, with Jagan brother of Thandi deceased. As she has herself admitted rather grudging in her deposition in the trial, she deserted Jagan, as she did not like him. She then went to Mangya's1 house in, as she has said, another nata ceremony. She has a younger sister by the name of Surji. It was she and her husband Mangya who arranged the marriage of Surji with applicant Rewariya. Surji did not like Rewariya. She therefore deserted him after sometime. Her nata alliance was thereafter arranged with one Ram Prasad with whom she is said to be living now. 9. Turning now to the statement of Rampati in the trial, she had first denied that Surji is her younger sister. As the cross-examination revealed later, this denial was not without purpose. She admitted in cross-examination that Surji is her younger sister and that she and her husband Mangya has arranged her marriage to appellant Rewariya and that Surji had since deserted Rewariya and living with one Ram Prasad. As per custom in this community..........................the partners or relations of the girl who arrange the marriage get some money from the bride-groom as bride price. As per custom in this community..........................the partners or relations of the girl who arrange the marriage get some money from the bride-groom as bride price. It appears that Rampati and her husband Mangya had realised some amount from Rewariya for giving Surji in marriage to him. After Surji deserted Rewariya, the latter appears to have made a demand on Rampati and Mangya for the refund of his money. As Rampati herself admitted in her statement, such money has already been paid to Rewariya by her husband and father-in-law Jaipal. Her husband and Jaipal have also testified that they had paid Rs. 7,100/- to Rewariya through Dariba. 10. I am of the considered opinion that Rampati started her statement in cross-examination by denial that Surji is her younger sister, for she knew it too well that she and her husband had received payment from appellant Rewariya as the price of his marriage to Surji. That apart, the statement of Rampati in the trial suffers from so many contradictions and inconsistencies as compared to her statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. All these factors taken together would naturally incline one to take what Rampati has to say about the occurrence with a grain of salt. 11. Rampati has testified that at the time of her alleged abduction she was busy grinding Chakki in her house and that her husband was sleeping outside in the compound. She further stated that three persons came inside her house and physically removed her from there to the waiting bus out side. She added in this context that there in the bus she saw a number of persons including appellant Rewariya. She recalled that, in village Bamanbas, she was kept in appellant Rewariya's house for about one month and she was allowed to go outside the house into the fields for answering the usual calls of nature. She, in her earlier statements before the trial did not accuse any one, except Rewariya, of having had sexual intercourse with her, without her consent. She, in her earlier statements before the trial did not accuse any one, except Rewariya, of having had sexual intercourse with her, without her consent. However, during the trial, she has materially changed her version in as much as she has named a few other persons in addition to Rewariya who had sexual intercourse with her without her consent in the village Bamanbas in Rewariya's (SIC) Imaoualso mentioned that at another place in her statement at the trial she has testified that instead of Rewariya's house she was kept in Dariba's house in village Bamanbas. This being the type of the evidence given to Smt. Rampati, I am afraid it is not possible to place any reliance what so ever on it. Her testimony must, therefore, be rejected as unreliable. 12. P. W. Mangya husband of Rampati is also, in my opinion, a unreliable witness. If one reads his statement between the lines, it would be evident that he was fast asleep at the time of the alleged abduction of his wife from his house and that he woke up only after she had been taken from there. He could not have therefore possibly seen as to who were the abductors. He admitted in cross-examination that when he woke up the culprits had already taken away his wife. He further stated that one Banshi told him that he had seen the culprits carrying away his wife in a vehicle. Baushi has not been examined as a witness. His statement suffers from other inconsistencies. He first stated that his wife was sleeping in the house at the time of the occurrence. He changed his statement in the subsequent part of his deposition in which he added that she was grinding Chakki at the time of abduction. He would have us believed that he got his wife from the custody of the appellant only after paying him a ransom of Rs. 7,100/-. It is significant to note that he did not report to the police the alleged payment of the ransom by him to the appellant. 13. The third witness, namely, Jaipal is the father-in-law of Smt. Rampati and father of Mangya. If Mangya is to be believed, Jaipal arrived at the house on hearing the hue and cry raised by Mangya. He himself admitted that he raised hue and cry only after the culprits had gone away. 13. The third witness, namely, Jaipal is the father-in-law of Smt. Rampati and father of Mangya. If Mangya is to be believed, Jaipal arrived at the house on hearing the hue and cry raised by Mangya. He himself admitted that he raised hue and cry only after the culprits had gone away. Thus, Jaipal could not see any thing about the occurrence. 14. For all these reasons all the three witnesses on whom the learned trial Court has relied, are not reliable. No conviction can, therefore, be based on their testimony. 15. I accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Rewariya and instead acquit him. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. *******