Short Note : 1. The brief facts for the purpose of this appeal were that at Datia near motor-stand, there was a block of eight quarters of Housing Society. Prosecutrix Laxmi used to live with her parents in Quarter No.7, Kaluram (PW 2) in Quarter No.3 and Prakash Sindhi in Quarter No.5. 2. On the date in Question i.e. 28-11-74 at about 8-p.m. the prosecutrix Laxmi came out of her Quarter and was proceeding towards the block of Prakash. It is alleged that the appellants and accused caught hold of her as soon as she earn out of her Quarter and forcibly dragged her. On hearing her shouts her mother Tirathbai came out and so also Kaluram (PW 2) from his quarter. Prakash is also said to have come out. They tried to stop her being kidnapped but failed and the appellants are said to have carried Laxmi away in darkness. One Jaggumal Sindhi went to the shop of the prosecutrix's father at Bhander and informed the latter of the incident. Jaggumal (PW 1) father of the prosecutrix, came down to Datia and tried to trace out his daughter here and there but could not succeed and, therefore, went to the Thana on 29-11-74 and lodged the report (Ex. P.1) there. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial came to the conclusion in para 10 of the judgment that the prosecutrix Laxmi was not below 18 years of age. It was further held that the offences under sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code were not established against the accused including the appellants. Further in para 15 of the judgment, it was held that the charge of rape against the appellant Kishori was not established. However, in succeeding paragraphs i.e paras 16 and 17 of the judgment, the appellants were found guilty under section 354, Indian Penal Code. Held: It is curious to note that in this case. even the prosecutrix Laxmi, has not been examined. So also her mother Tirath Bai has not been examined. A lame excuse mentioned in the trial Court was that the minor girl and her mother had not come forward to give evidence as Laxmi was subsequently married and they would feel defamed. even the prosecutrix Laxmi, has not been examined. So also her mother Tirath Bai has not been examined. A lame excuse mentioned in the trial Court was that the minor girl and her mother had not come forward to give evidence as Laxmi was subsequently married and they would feel defamed. It is not at all a reasonable explanation to with-hold the material and best evidence of the prosecutrix Non-examination of these witnesses has certainly resulted in prejudice to the appellants, in all much as they filed two photographs in the case. One photograph is that of the prosecutrix and the other is said to be that of the prosecutrix Laxmi with the appellant Kishori Both of them had photographed themselves together. In the circumstances there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel of the appellants that it appears to be a case of consent. 4. As for the evidence in the case, the evidence of father Jaggumal (PW 1) is not of much value. He claims to have derived the information from his wife, Tirath Bai about the abduction of the prosecutrix. However, Tirath Bai has not been examined. The result is that no value can be attached to the so called res gestae evidence of Jaggamal(PW1) and the first-information report which was lodged by him. Kaluram (PW 2) remains to be only witness of the incident. His sole testimony does not find corroboration from any other source in the case. However, his testimony is that at the relevant time he was inside the room taking his meals. He heard shouts, came out and was told by Tirath Bai that some goondas were carrying away her daughter. Then, he claims to have seen the accused carrying Laxmi. It is curious that this person living in the house let it go like that and did not make any genuine effort to stop the girl from being carried away. He did not even appear to have raised cries as to call other people of the locality to catch-hold of them. On further scrutiny of the testimony of this witness Kaluram (PW 2), it is noted that all that he saw was the back of the miscreants (see para 6 of his deposition). Curiously enough, he would say that the miscreants, while going were looking back simultaneously and by this momentary action of theirs, he happened to see their faces. On further scrutiny of the testimony of this witness Kaluram (PW 2), it is noted that all that he saw was the back of the miscreants (see para 6 of his deposition). Curiously enough, he would say that the miscreants, while going were looking back simultaneously and by this momentary action of theirs, he happened to see their faces. His statement is that he saw one of the appellants catching hold of one hand of the girl and the other appellant, the other hand. This probably was the main thing on the basis of which the learned trial Court found the appellants guilty under section 354 Indian Penal Code. In fact, it was material difference in evidence. 5. Thus, on the evidence in the instant case, highly discrepant and contradictory as it is, in my view, it would not be sate to hold guilty any of the appellants for the offence under section 354, Indian Penal Code. Appeal allowed,