JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi under Section 342 I. P. C. vide judgment dated 29-9-1973. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on the night intervening 26/27th November, 1966, Mst. Tipu (PW 1) was sleeping in the room of her house and her husband and husbands elder brother (PW 2) had gone for watering the fields. The appellants Gattu and Mopta are said to have visited her in the night and asked her to accompany them as she has been called by Shri Bhoor Singh. On refusal, she was beaten and threatened and was forcibly taken to the Bera of Bhoorsingh known as `Nakra'. It is said that Shri Bhoor Singh, who happened to be the Jagirdar of village, as used to get one goat from each villager and on this demand being made from the family of Mst. Tipu, it is said that it was not complied with. When she was produced before Shri Bhoor Singh, it is alleged that she was kicked and was confined in a room and was raped by him. The appellant Shri Rawata and Shri Kesia remained outside the room and kept a watch on her. On the next day, morning Mst. Tipu's husband's, elder brother Shri Sankla and her nephew Shri Kheta came to the well `Nakra' who were said to have been informed by Mst. Tipu's son Amba aged about nine years about her. Shri Sankla and Shri Kheta requested Shri Bhoor Singh to release her but Shri Bhoor Singh refused to do so, and demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from them. It is said that one Shri Jethu Singh was sent for by Shri Sankla through Shri Kheta. On intervention by Shri Jethusingh, Mst, Tipu was released. On report of the occurrence on 28-11-1966, a case under sections 376, 366, 447 and 342 I. P. C. was registered and after usual investigation charge-sheet was presents against the accused persons. The accused Shri Bhoor Singh was charged for the offence under section 376 I. P. C. The accused Gattu and Mopta were charged under section 447 IPC and all the five accused persons were charged under section 342 and 366 I. P. C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The accused Shri Bhoor Singh was charged for the offence under section 376 I. P. C. The accused Gattu and Mopta were charged under section 447 IPC and all the five accused persons were charged under section 342 and 366 I. P. C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and after recording of the statement of the accused persons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Shri Bhoor Singh of the offence under section 376 I. P. C. He also acquitted the accused Gattu and Mopta for the offence-under sec. 447 I. P. C. and the five persons were acquitted of the offence under sec. 366 IPC. and convicted all of them of the offence under section 342 IPC. The accused Shri Bhoor Singh sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to under go rigorous imprisonment for one month, and the other accused persons were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence the accused persons have preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the major part of the prosecution story has not been believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Out of the seven witnesses, five witnesses have turned hostile. Takhat Singh (PW 9) is the Head Constable, (PW 7) Motilal is the Investigating Officer. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in its entirety. 5. He has also urged that with regard to the offence uuder section 342 IPC, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly relied upon the testimony of Shri Babusingh. He has urged that Shri Babusingh had not visited the Bera `Nakra' of Shri Bhoor Singh and has not made any statement to prove the offence under section 342 IPC and his testimony does not in any way connect the accused persons with the commission of this offence. Thus, according to him no corroboration can be sought from the testimony of Shri Babusingh. He also, pointed out that Shri Jethusingh was a most material witness in the case it is said, that it was at his instance, Mst. Tipu was got released. Thus, according to him no corroboration can be sought from the testimony of Shri Babusingh. He also, pointed out that Shri Jethusingh was a most material witness in the case it is said, that it was at his instance, Mst. Tipu was got released. He also pointed out the contradiction in the statement of Shri Sankla and Shri Kheta on the point as to whether Shri Jethusingh was sent for by Shri Sankla through Shri Kheta. He also urged that so far as the accused person Shri Rawata, Shri Kasia, Gattu and Mopta are concerned, there is no evidence worth the name which may connect them with the offence under section 342 I. P. C. As regards Shri Bhoor Singh, under the circumstances of the case solitary statement of Mst. Tipu should not be relied upon. Thus, he urged that offence under section 342 I. P. C. has not been brought home to the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. So, they may be acquitted of the offence under section 342 I. P. C. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand tried to support the conviction of the accused persons on the basis that it may be that remaining story of the prosecution may not be true, but conviction of the appellants is sustainable for the offence under section 342 on the basis of the testimonies of Mst. Tipu, Sankla and Kheta. 7. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by both the sides, I am of the opinion that conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 342 I. P. C. cannot be sustained. The offence under section 342 IPC is well knit with the other offences. If the prosecution story in its major part has not been believed, then in such a situation, it is difficult to believe this part of the prosecution case that Mst. Tipu was wrongfully confined. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Babusingh's statement does not in any way help the prosecution to connect the accused with the Commission of the offence under section 342 I. P. C. There remains only the statements of Mst. Tipu, Sankla, Kheta. There is no independent corroboration of these three witnesses. The corroboration could have been from the statement of Shri Jethusingh but Shri Jethusingh has not been examined. Tipu, Sankla, Kheta. There is no independent corroboration of these three witnesses. The corroboration could have been from the statement of Shri Jethusingh but Shri Jethusingh has not been examined. In my opinion, as stated above, if for other offences the testimony of these witnesses has not been found to be truthful then, for this part of the prosecution story, it cannot be said that there statements are worthy of credence. Then, there is discrepancy in the statements of Kheta, Sankla as pointed out by the learned counsel. Further the report of the occurrence is also belated and admittedly the report was lodged after consultation with Shri Jethusingh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has found that F. I. R. cannot be said to be a spontaneous report and thus taking into consideration the evidence and circumstances in their entirety, it would not be proper to sustain the conviction for the offence under section 342 IPC. In this view of the matter so far as this part of the prosecution case is concerned, it is not free from doubt. Thus, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the offence under section 342 IPC. 8. In the result, the appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the offence under section 342 IPC. Fine, if deposited shall be refunded to the appellants.Appeal accepted. *******