Short Note : 1. The case of the prosecution was that on 17-3-76, the appellants and one Jaliya went to the hut of Hukki and kidnapped the minor girl Kamli. When the appellants and the other co-accused were taking away the girl from the house of Hukki certain persons collected on the alarm of Hukki and they took out the minor girl Kamli from the custody of the appellants. It is also alleged that when Hukki and other persons snatched away Kamli from the custody of the appellants, the latter assaulted them and caused injuries. The appellants and the co-accused Jaliya were therefore, charge sheeted for the substantive offences under sections 363 and 366 IPC as well as vicariously with the aid of section 34 IPC. They were also charged for the offence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC. The trial Court acquitted the fourth accused Jaliya of all the charges. However, the present appellants were held guilty for the offences under sections 363/34 and 323/34 IPC for which they were convicted and sentenced as already indicated above. The appellants have, therefore, come to this Court in appeal. Held : Now it has to be seen whether the offence of kidnapping is proved against the appellants. The evidence of Hukki (PW.1), Kamli (PW.2) and Limji (PW.3) appears to be quite natural and convincing. It is proved from the evidence of these witnesses that the appellants went to the house of Hukki, caught hold of her sister Kamli and began to take her by force to the house of applicant No. 1 Baliya. It has also come in the evidence of these witnesses that hardly the appellants had taken the girl up to a distance of half a furlong, she was freed from the clutches of the appellants by the intervention of Limji (PW3) and Poonji. Thus, technically the offence under section 363/34 IPC has been proved against the appellants. 2. Now, the question for consideration is whether the offence under section 323/34 IPC has been proved against the appellants. The charge against the appellants is that they voluntarily caused hurt to Poonji w/o Balchand, but the prosecution has not examined Poonji. It is true that Dr. T.S. Arif (P.W.12) says that he had examined Poonji and found one lacerated wound on the right parie to-frontal aspect. The charge against the appellants is that they voluntarily caused hurt to Poonji w/o Balchand, but the prosecution has not examined Poonji. It is true that Dr. T.S. Arif (P.W.12) says that he had examined Poonji and found one lacerated wound on the right parie to-frontal aspect. However, in the absence of evidence of Poonji, the medical evidence is of no assistance to prove the case of the prosecution. The witnesses Hukki (PW.1), Kamli (PW.2) and Limji (PW.3) have deposed that the appellant No. 3 Thawra had assaulted Poonji. However there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant Thawra caused hurt to Poonji in furtherance of the common intention of all the appellants. The testimony of these witnesses as regards the commission of the offence of causing simple hurt to Poonji is corroborative in nature. When the prosecution has failed to examine Poonji, the corroborative evidence is also of no avail. I am, therefore of the view that the conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 323/34 IPC cannot be sustained. 3. From the trend of cross-examination, it appears, that the appellants were demanding money from Kaliya for being paid to one Hakru for the divorce which had taken place between Hakru and Kammu, the sister-in-law of Hukki (PW.1). Thus, it appears, that the girl Kamli was kidnapped to coerce the husband of Hukki for getting some money paid to Hakru. The appellants have already undergone the jail sentence for a period of about 20 days. Thus looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be desirable to send back the appellants to jail to undergo a short sentence of six month's R.I. To my mind, interest of justice can be met with by awarding the sentence of imprisonment already undergone together with a fine of Rs. 100 to each appellant. Appeal partly allowed.