JUDGMENT P.N. Goel 1. SRI Krishna alias Jhalla appellant, aged about 25 years, resident of village Asanpur, police station Rajepur, district Farrukhabad has been convicted and sentenced under Section 366 IPC to undergo RI for three years. 2. SIMPLE case of the prosecution against the appellant was that on 8-6-1973 at about 5 P. M. he forcibly took away Km. Pushpa Devi (P. W. 2) from the grove of one Ved Ram in village Asanpur where she was picking up mangoes. At the time of occurrence Kim. Pushpa Devi was aged about 13 years. Defence of the appellant was that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 3. REPORT of the occurrence was lodged by Smt. Ram Sukhi (P. W. 1), mother of Km. Pushpa Devi at 6. 45 P. M. The police station is one mile from the village of occurrence. 4. ACCORDING to the prosecution, Km. Pushpa Devi was recovered by the police on 10-6-1973 from the house of Ram Nath (P. W. 4) in village Makhan Nagla within police station Rajepur, district Farrukhabad. On the question of forcible taking away, the prosecution examined Smt. Ram Sukhi, Km. Pushpa Devi and Km. Rajwati (P. Ws. 1 to 3). Km. Rajawati stated that the appellant dragged Km. Pushpa Devi for a little distance and then left her and that thereafter Km. Pushpa Devi went to her house with her mother Smt. Ram Sukhi. In this way she gave a death blow to the story of the prosecution that Km. Pushpa Devi was recovered on the next day from the house of Ram Nath in Makhan Nagla. Therefore, the prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her. In this way there remained the testimony of Smt. Ram Sukhi and Km. Pushpa Devi only. 5. ON the point of recovery of Km. Pushpa Devi on 10-6-1973 from the house of Ram Nath in Makhan Nagla, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Bharat Singh SI (P. W. 8), Ram Nath (P. W. 4) and Prem Singh (P. W. 5). The evidence of these three witnesses cannot be believed for the reasons assigned hereunder: (1) Bharat Singh stated that on 10-6-1973 he learnt from an informer that Km. Pushpa Devi was In Makhan Nagla at the house of Ram Nath. Therefore, he went there and recovered her. Evidence of Km. The evidence of these three witnesses cannot be believed for the reasons assigned hereunder: (1) Bharat Singh stated that on 10-6-1973 he learnt from an informer that Km. Pushpa Devi was In Makhan Nagla at the house of Ram Nath. Therefore, he went there and recovered her. Evidence of Km. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Ram Sukhi indicate that Smt. Ram Sukhi had reached the house of Ram Nath well before the reaching of the investigating officer at the house of Ram Nath. Correctly speaking it appears that Smt. Ram Sukhi reached at the house of Ram Nath on the next day of the date of occurrence i.e. she reached at the house of Ram Nath on 9-6-1973. Obviously, therefore, she would have informed the police that the girl was at the house of Ram Nath. (2) According to Ram Nath and Prem Singh, they saw Km. Pushpa Devi going with the appellant in the evening of 8-6-1973 and as soon as they challenged, Shri Krishna ran away. Thereafter Ram Nath took her to his house. If this is correct then Ram Nath and Prem Singh who were the Jijmans of the father of Km. Pushpa Devi should have immediately informed Smt. Ram Sukhi on 8-6-1973, but they gave no information about it either on 8-6- 1973 or on 9-6-1973. (3) Ram Shanker, husband of Smt. Ram Sukhi was murdered about 3 or 4 years before the occurrence. He used to do Panditai. In that connection Ram Nath and Prem Singh were his Jijmans. Km. Pushpa Devi used to go with her father to the places of Jijmans. Ram Nath and Prem Singh knew her from before the occurrence. Km. Pushpa Devi had told these witnesses in the evening of 8-6-1973 that the appellant was taking her away forcibly. In this position it was the bcunden duty of these witnesses to have informed the police as well as Smt. Ram Sukhi on the very day of occurrence. As stated just above they neither informed Smt. Ram Sukhi, nor the police, on 8-6- 1973 as well as on 9-6-1973. This conduct clearly shows that these witnesses had not taken away Km. Pushpa Devi to the house of Ram Nath as alleged. 6. THE position that follows from the above is that the prosecution wrongly alleged that Km. Pushpa Devi was recovered on 10-6-1973 from the house of Ram Nath. This conduct clearly shows that these witnesses had not taken away Km. Pushpa Devi to the house of Ram Nath as alleged. 6. THE position that follows from the above is that the prosecution wrongly alleged that Km. Pushpa Devi was recovered on 10-6-1973 from the house of Ram Nath. This conclusion lends support to the statement of Km. Rajwati that the appellant had dragged Km. Pushpa Devi upto a little distance only and then he left her and ran away. It will be noticed that at the time of occurrence Smt. Ram Sukhi and Km. Rajwati were near the place of occurrence. Smt. Ram Sukhi clearly called upon the appellant as to why he was taking her away. 7. IT may be mentioned that Shri Krishna is a cousion of Km. Pushpa Devi as will appear from the following pedigree (Pedigree omitted-Ed.) 8. THE next question which arises in the case is as to why the appellant wanted to take away Km. Pushpa Devi. Smt. Ram Sukhi has not said a word about it. THEre is no allegation in this respect in the first information report. Km. Pushpa Devi has attempted to show that the appellant wanted to marry her. He said so loudly when he caught her hand and began to take her away. But this fact is not at all corroborated by Smt. Ram Sukhi, who was close by. The position, therefore, is that the prosecution has not been able to indicate as to why the appellant wanted to take away Km. Pushpa Devi. In case the appellant had no intention and no motive and no reason to take away Km. Pushpa Devi, then it is extremely doubtful that he had actually taken her away forcibly as alleged. In this aspect of the matter the case of the prosecution that Km. Pushpa Devi was forcibly taken away by the appellant is not free from doubt. 9. IN view of the above, the appellant can neither be held guilty of kidnapping nor of abduction. Abduction simpliciter is not punishable at law. Abduction with the intentions mentioned in Sections 364, 365 and 366 is punishable but in the instant case none of the intentions have either been alleged or proved. 10. SECTION 361 no doubt lays down that whoever takes a female under eighteen years of age, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian, is said to kidnap. Abduction with the intentions mentioned in Sections 364, 365 and 366 is punishable but in the instant case none of the intentions have either been alleged or proved. 10. SECTION 361 no doubt lays down that whoever takes a female under eighteen years of age, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian, is said to kidnap. In this case the appellant is a close relation of Km. Pushpa Devi. He had absolutely no intentions or motive to take her away. Therefore, it is not easily believable that the appellant had forcibly taken away Km. Pushpa Devi in the presence of her mother. In the result the appellant cannot be convicted for kidnapping punishable under Section 363 IPC. 11. FOR the reasons set out above, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. 12. APPEAL is allowed and the order dated 26-2-1975 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 366 IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. He shall not surrender. His bail bonds arc discharged. APPEAL allowed.