JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are by Bherun, Roopa, Tara Chand and Hira appellants against the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Partabgarh, Camp Chittorgarh dated August 29, 1974 whereby, appellant Hira was convicted under section 366. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and the other appellants were also convicted under section 366, Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of 5 years rigorous implementation and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 2. The facts according to the prosecution were these On June 21, 1973, Bheri wife of Hazarijat was returning with Kishna and Bhura from Kapasan on foot Near the Railway bridge, the appellants assaulted Mst. Bheri with sticks and gave her numerous blows Bhura and Kishna ran away. Mst. Bheri by the use of force, was taken to village Pandoli. It appears that Mst. Rambha was married to appellant Hira She, however, deserted appellant Hira and went in 'nata' to the brother of Mst. Bheri. The three other appellants are brothers of Mst. Rambha. Mst Bheri was taken to the house of the appellant Hira in village Pandoli Mst. Bheri requested Narain to rescue her. One Amarchand finally took her to Surajpura. It appears that the appellants did not put any further restrain upon Mst. Bheri after she was taken to the house of appellant Hira. On the next clay, Hazari, PW 3 husband of Mst. Bheri reported the incident in the police station, Kapasan. A case under section 366, Indian Penal Code was registered and after the usual investigation, challan was filed in the court of Mursif Magistrate, Kapasan, who committed the appellants to the Sessions to face the trial. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution story was improbable. The solitary statement of Mst. Bheri was not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of the guilt of the appellants. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution story was improbable. The solitary statement of Mst. Bheri was not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of the guilt of the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge did not convict the appellants of offence under section 313, Indian Penal Code and they were, thus, impliedly acquitted of the same Hence, it is not open to the prosecution, to argue that Mst. Bheri was abducted by force. In the alternative, it was urged that no offence under section 366 was made out, because there is no evidence to prove that the intention of the appellant is was to force Mst. Bheri to marry against her wish on to compel her to illicit intercourse. Or the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the story unfolded by the persecution was natural, There was ample evidence on the record that Mst Bheri was abducted by the appellant is with the intention to fore her against her with to live in 'nata' with appellant Hira. Learned Sessions Judge impliedly has acquitted the appellants of the offence under section 323, Indian Penal Code but still the court can look into that evidence of beating with a view to find out whether the appellants were rightly convicted for the offence of abduction. 5. I have considered the rival contentions very carefully. In any opinion, there is nothing unnatural or improbable in the testimony of P.W.1 Mst. Bheri. She clearly stated that when they reached near the Railway bridge, she was assaulted by all the appellants. They gave him 30.40 blows and then by force. they took her to the house of appellant Tarachand at village Pandoli. It is true that she had not given the details of the blows caused to her. However, in the circumstances, it was not possible for her to give such details. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Kishan' lal P.W 2 did not try to rescue his sister-in-law and, therefore, his conduct was unnatural is also without force He was hardly in a position to rescue his sister-in-law. Mst Bheri. It was then argued that though Mst. Bheri was attacked by the four appellants, yet she did not receive any grievous his or serious injuries and this was unlikely. Mst Bheri. It was then argued that though Mst. Bheri was attacked by the four appellants, yet she did not receive any grievous his or serious injuries and this was unlikely. In my opinion, the argument has no force because the object of the appellant was not to kill or seriously injure Mst. Bheri. Their object was to take away Mst. Bheri by force. Another argument advanced was that Mst. Bheri stared that he did not know Mst. Rambha and went to the extent that she did not know whether Mst. Rambha wife of Hira had gone in 'nata' to her brother Bhura. Of course the witness was not deposing correctly on this score but it is of no material significance and has nothing to do with the main case. My attention was also drawn to the statement, where in she deposed that after the beating, she became unconscious and was carried on the stretcher of lathis and, therefore, she could not say whether any. body met her in the way. This is of small consequence because she might be slightly exaggerating. 6. It was then argued that it is not safe to base conviction on the solitary statement of this witness. This argument has no force because, it is amply corroborated by other witness. PW2 Kishanlal though he did not know the assailants but has substantially corroborated the version given by Mst. Bheri. That apart, PW 4 Jeetu has also stated that some persons assaulted Mst. Bheri. P W 7 Narain stated that he met Mst. bheri sitting out side the house of Hira Bheri told him that the appellants had brought her there and requested him to arrange far her a cart. The witness told the appellants that they world go to jail for bringing Mst. Bheri PW8 Jamnalal also deposed similarly. PW 10 Amarchand stated that he took away Mst. Bheri from out side the house of Hira to a village near Surajpura. In my opinion, these witnesses and also the injury report and the statement of doctor H. Rehman amply corroborate the statement of Mst. Bheri. This much is, therefore, proved beyond reasonable doubt that near the Railway bridge Mst. Bheri was given a beating and then was taken by force to village pandoli. 7. The next point for determination is what offence is made out against the appellant. Bheri. This much is, therefore, proved beyond reasonable doubt that near the Railway bridge Mst. Bheri was given a beating and then was taken by force to village pandoli. 7. The next point for determination is what offence is made out against the appellant. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is not proved that the appellants abducted Mst. Bheri for any of the purposes mentioned in section 366, IPC. There is only the solitary statement of Mst. Bheri that she was abducted for keeping in 'nata' with Hira. However, this was her inference only. The conduct of the appellant did not conclusively point to this intention. PW 7 Narain clearly stated that Mst. Rambha wife of Hira had been taken in 'nata' by Bhura. It appears that Mst. Bheri was abducted to exert pressure on Bhura, who is the brother of Mst. Bheri to return Rambha. Hira is husband of Mst. Rambha and the three appellants are her brothers. The possibility can not be ruled out that the intention of the appellants was not that Mst. Bheri be compelled to illicit intercourse or marry against her will but to exert pressure on Bhura to return Mst. Rambha to Hira appellant. 8. In my opinion, it is not able to rely on the inference of Mst. Bheri that she was abducted for being kept in 'nata' with Hira, in the absence of any other evidence, or conduct of the appellants to that effect. There is a strong possibility that the appellant abducted Mst. Bheri with a view to exert pressure on her brother to return Mst. Rambha. In this view of the matter the appellants are entitle a to the benefit of doubt for the offence under section 366, Indian Penal Code but certainly an offence under section 342, Indian Penal Code has been proved against them beyond reasonable doubt. It was argued that either the appellants may be released on probation or the impaling of fine only will meet the ends of justice. The incident occurred in the year 1973. I am inclined to agree with this contention as a short sentence of imprisonment is net going to serve any useful purpose either as a deterrent or a reformative measure. 9. The incident occurred in the year 1973. I am inclined to agree with this contention as a short sentence of imprisonment is net going to serve any useful purpose either as a deterrent or a reformative measure. 9. I, therefore, partly accept the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned lower court and acquit appellants Bheri, Roopa, Tarachand and Mira of the offence wider section 366, IPC. However, they are convicted for the offence under section 342, Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to simile imprisonment for 3 months. Fine if recovered be paid to Mst. Bheri. The appellants will deposit the fine in the trial court within four weeks.Appeal partly accepted. *******