M. L. SHRIMAL, J.—These two appeals being S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1978 and S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 1978 arise out of the same judgment and relate to the same occurrence and as such they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Accused Phoola, Hariram alias Sriram and Suraj Karan (acquitted by the trial court) were prosecuted in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, under sections 342, 343 and 366, I.P.C., for abducting Mst. Durga by deceitful means with an intention to compel her to marry against her wishes and for wrongful confinement for more than three days. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Suraj Karan, who was tried along with the appellants. He, however, convicted and sentenced accused-appellants Phoola and Hari Ram alias Shri Ram as under:— 1. Phoola u/s 366, IPC 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 3 months rigorous imprisonment. u/s 342, IPC 1 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Hariram u/s 366, IPC 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a alias fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of paym-Sriram ent of fine to further suffer 3 months rigorous imprisonment. u/s 343, IPC 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded under different counts were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, as disclosed at the trial is that PW 1 Mst. Durga, married wife of Ram Chandra, aged nearly 22 years, was living with her father-in-law at the time of the commission of the offence. On February 18, 1977, PW 1 Mst. Durga, PW 3 Moba and PW 6 Sarwan were working on their fields. Both the accused Hariram alias Sriram and Phoola came to Moba and informed him that Mst. Durgas brother, Amar Chand, had been lying ill in village Tihari and they had been sent by her brother and mother to bring her. As Phoola is a distant nephew of Mst. Durga and Hariram alias Sriram is the prosecutrixs father-in-laws brother-in-laws son, Moba and Mst. Durga were led to believe their statement, which induced and misled Moba to allow Mst. Durga to go with them. Mst. Durga sat on the bicycle of accused Phoola and thereafter she went along with both the accused. Hariram alias Sriram was paddling a separate bicycle. Durga and Hariram alias Sriram is the prosecutrixs father-in-laws brother-in-laws son, Moba and Mst. Durga were led to believe their statement, which induced and misled Moba to allow Mst. Durga to go with them. Mst. Durga sat on the bicycle of accused Phoola and thereafter she went along with both the accused. Hariram alias Sriram was paddling a separate bicycle. While all the three were leaving the fields, Moba asked them to send the information regarding Amarchands health. Even after four days having passed, no information reached Moba and as such he went to village Tihari to ascertain the correct position of the facts narrated to him by the accused, where Mst. Durgas mother PW 2 Mst. Jamni informed him that neither her son had been ill nor had anybody been sent for calling Mst. Durga and he was duped. From village Tihari he went to Kekri and met PW 4 Amarchand to inquire from him. The latter also told him that he had been deceived. Thereafter Moba in the company of Amarchand went to village Rambadi, then to villages Tihari, Dandh and Dadiya in search of his daughter-in-law, but failed to locate her. Eventually the searching party came to know that accused Phoola and Hariram alias Sriram had taken away Mst. Durga for an unknown place. Accordingly a written information was filed at the Police Station, Nasirabad, which has been marked Ex. P/l. On the basis of this information the police registered a case and recorded the formal first information report Ex. p/2. The police party along with Mst. Durgas brother came to Ajmer and recovered Mst. Durga from the house of PW 5 Kailash. The recovery memo is Ex. p/3. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the above mentioned three accused to the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, who committed them for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer. They were ultimately tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer. 4. Both the appellants along with the acquitted accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and the prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of their case, out of whom PW 1 Mst. Durga is the prosecutrix; PW 2 Mst. Jamani is her mother; PW 3 Moba is her father-in-law; PW 4 Amar Chand is her brother and PW 5 Kailash is the person from whose house she was recovered. Durga is the prosecutrix; PW 2 Mst. Jamani is her mother; PW 3 Moba is her father-in-law; PW 4 Amar Chand is her brother and PW 5 Kailash is the person from whose house she was recovered. PW 6 Sarwan is her brother and PW 7 Bhanwar Singh is the investigating officer of the case. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C, denied their complicity in the crime. They neither raised any specific defence nor did they examine any witness. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the statements of PW 1 Mst. Durga, PW 2 Mst. Jamani, PW 3 Moba, PW 4 Amar Chand and PW 6 Sarwan, held that both the accused, namely, Hariram alias Sriram and Phoola by deceitful means abducted Mst. Durga from the field of Moba, On the basis of the statement of Mst. Durga and her recovery from the house of Kailash and the proved circumstances of the case he further held that she was abducted with the intention to marry her against her will and was removed from place to place and confined at different places for more than 3 days. On the basis of the above findings he convicted both the accused and sentenced them as mentioned above. He, however, acquitted the third accused Suraj Karan. Hence these appeals. 6. Learnd Advocates appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants have assailed the judgment of the trial court. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that none of the witnesses is reliable. The prosecutrix is a woman of easy virtues. She has left her earlier husband and has performed Nata marriage with Ram Chandra and there are circumstances to hold that she left the field of her own accord. Learned counsel adds that she was recovered from a house at Ajmer, which was neither under lock and key nor was there any restriction on her movements and as such there is nothing to hold that she was abducted with the intention to marry her against her wishes or seduce to illicit intercourse. Placing reliance on certain contradictions in her statement learned counsel further urged that she had made material improvements in her statement before the Court and no reliance could be placed on the testimony of such a witness. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 7. Placing reliance on certain contradictions in her statement learned counsel further urged that she had made material improvements in her statement before the Court and no reliance could be placed on the testimony of such a witness. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 7. It is a fact that one of the co-accused namely, Suraj Karan, has been acquitted by the lower Court and the State Government has not come up in appeal. Therefore, the statement of the prosecutrix will have to be examined with care and caution. 8. Learned counsel urged that for a completion of the offence under secs. 362 and 366, IPC, it was necessary that the accused should compel a person to go from any place either by force or by deceitful means Learned counsel urged that in this case it could not be said that deceitful means had been employed for the purpose of inducing the prosecutrix to marry her against her wishes. The prosecutrix was knowing fully well that the accused had taken the bicycles on a road which was not going to lead to village Chandsi and as such if she would not have been a willing party, she would have raised cries then and there. 9. I am unable to agree with this contention. The witness in the same breath stated that she did not raise a cry, because she was told by the accused that her brother was removed to Dandh and the way on which the bicycles were taken was leading to village Dandh. It has also been urged very vehemently that according to the statement of the prosecutrix herself she was removed to be given as a wife to a Jat of village Deopuri, but when she refused to remain with Ramlal Jat, she was taken to Ajmer and thus there was no intention to marry her against her wishes. The contention is though attractive, but it is without any merit. The expression "deceitful means" is wide enough to include the inducing of a girl to leave her father-in laws house on a pretext. "Deceit" according to its plain dictionary meaning signifies anything intended to mislead another. It is, really speaking a matter of intention, and even if the promise held out by the accused is fulfilled by him, the question is whether he is acting in a bonafide manner. "Deceit" according to its plain dictionary meaning signifies anything intended to mislead another. It is, really speaking a matter of intention, and even if the promise held out by the accused is fulfilled by him, the question is whether he is acting in a bonafide manner. There is ample evidence on record in the statement of Mst. Durga PW 1, Amarchand PW 4 and Sarwan PW 6 that both the accused approached Moba PW 3, made a misrepresentation to him that Mst. Durgas brother was ill and on this false pretext and inducement Moba allowed Mst. Durga to accompany them. The excuse being false has been amply proved by the statement of PW 2 Mst. Jamani and PW 4 Amar Chand. 10. PW 1 Mst. Durga stated that both the accused took her to the house of Shri Ram alias Hari Ram where she asked him about the welfare and whereabouts of her brother, but Sriram alias Hariram told her that he was dead. She was also informed that she was removed for the purpose of marrying her with some other person. On her questioning as to why a deceit was pla>ed upon her, they threatened her with dire consequences of cutting her into pieces. Thereafter she was removed to Ram Lal Jats place, but as she refused to live there, both the accused assured her that they would take her to her father-in-laws place and thereafter under a false pretext she was taken to village Kadha. The witness further goes on to state that when she refused to accept a Nata marriage with any other person, the accused threatened her saying that her son would be done to death in case she did not agree to their proposal and thereafter she was taken to Ajmer. 11. It has been vehemently urged that she was removed from place to place and she had the opportunities to make complaints to other persons and if she would not have been a willing party, she would have at least raised a cry when she was made to sit in the bus for Ajmer. It should not be forgotten that Mst. Durga is an uneducated village rustic woman. History knows very well that even the highest educated ladies placed in high position have to yield to satisfy their children, which they would not have done otherwise. It should not be forgotten that Mst. Durga is an uneducated village rustic woman. History knows very well that even the highest educated ladies placed in high position have to yield to satisfy their children, which they would not have done otherwise. It cannot, therefore, be said to be altogether unnatural that Mst. Durga was made to surrender to a position which she would not otherwise have done, unless threatened that her child would be removed from the surface of earth. Throughout her cross-examination she has not been contradicted on this point, though she has been contradicted on other points relating to certain omissions in her police statement i.e. giving of slap and showing of pistol and knife by Sriram alias Hariram to her and telling her that her brother was dead. She has also made certain exaggerations in her statement and it can be safely said that in Ajmer she was not kept under lock and key in the house of PW 5 Kailash. She had also the opportunity to make complaint to other persons. But the question remains whether she was a consenting party in her removal with the intention to marry some other person. As already narrated above, she was taken from place to place and was placed in unfamiliar surroundings. She was also threatened with the death of her only child, who was only 14 months of age. Hep-less and without any prospect of safety, she left village Kadha in a bus for Ajmer. Whatever little self confidence she possessed in the beginning might have been neutralised by the said situation in which she was placed. A mere act of helpless resignation in the face of inevitable compulsion, quiescence, non-resistance or passive giving in, when volitional faculty is either clouded by fear or vitiated by duress, cannot be deemed to be "consent" as understood in law. None of the accused had the courage to say that any one of them was in parlance with Mst. Durga. It is not the ease of the accused that as a part of the pre-arranged conspiracy between her and the accused they approached her father-in-law and removed her from her field with the intention to give her in marriage at a place of her choice. Durga. It is not the ease of the accused that as a part of the pre-arranged conspiracy between her and the accused they approached her father-in-law and removed her from her field with the intention to give her in marriage at a place of her choice. Simply because she surrendered to the inevitable situation at Ajmer and did not make complaints, it cannot be said that she was not removed with the intention to marry against her wishes. The words "will" and "consent" have well known meaning. They indicate a voluntary and conscience acceptance of what is proposed to be done by another and concurred in by the former. There is subtle difference between willingness and submission. There is a thin marginal line which divides the two On the proved facts of this case it can safely be said that there is nothing on the record that at any time the prosecutrix Mst. Durga was free to act of her own. On the contrary there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that at all material time she was kept in terror by the accused-appellants and she was under a constant fear that if she did not act according to their instructions, she might be forced to be deprived of the life of her child. The contention of learned counsel that her solitary statement regarding the intention of the accused was not sufficient to hold that any of the two accused intended to marry her with third person against her wishes is devoid of any merits. If they had no intention to marry her against her wishes, they would have sent her back to her village the time she refused to be the wife of Ramlal Jat, when she was taken there. The very fact that from the house of Ramlal Jat she was taken to village Kadha and thereafter to Ajmer in itself is sufficient to hold that they were in search of a man who could pay sufficient amount for keeping Mst Durga as his wife. The acquittal of Suraj Karan on the ground that he joined the appellants later on and was not a party to the fraud which has been practiced upon Mst. Durga and her father-in-law cannot be said to be an infirmity of the case, which can falsify the entire statement of Mst. Durga. 13. The acquittal of Suraj Karan on the ground that he joined the appellants later on and was not a party to the fraud which has been practiced upon Mst. Durga and her father-in-law cannot be said to be an infirmity of the case, which can falsify the entire statement of Mst. Durga. 13. In Ram Ratan vs. State of Rajasthan (1) while appreciating the evidence of Jawana Ram, a witness in that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:— "Lastly it was urged that Jawanaram had named five assailants and at least two have been acquitted, and that shows that Jawanaram is not wholly reliable. It is enough to point out that the Sessions Judge gave the benefit of doubt so far as two accused persons were concerned. He did not hold that Jawanarams evidence was false with respect to those two persons. Apparently those two persons did not take any active part in the incident and that may have led the Sessions Judge to give them the benefit of doubt; that is, however, no reason for disbelieving the testimony of Jawanaram." On the parity of reasoning, statement of Mst. Durga cannot be d scarded on this count. The contredictions appearing in her statement are mostly omissions. The maxim falsus-in-uno falsus-in-ominbus (false in one thing false in everything) is neither a rule of law nor a rule of practice. It is not a sound rule to apply looking to the conditions in this country and so it is the duty of the court in cases where the witnesses have been found to have given unreliable evidence in regard to certain particulars to scrutinize the rest of his or her evidence with care and caution and if the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains unimpaired on the whole, the Court should uphold the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy. The statement of Mst. Durga, after excluding the portion of her being kept under lock and key in Ajmer and certain minor contradictions, stands corroborated by the first information report Ex. P/2 as well as the statement of PW 3 Moba and PW 6 Sarwan. PW 3 Mobas statement further finds corroboration from the statements of PW 2 Mst. The statement of Mst. Durga, after excluding the portion of her being kept under lock and key in Ajmer and certain minor contradictions, stands corroborated by the first information report Ex. P/2 as well as the statement of PW 3 Moba and PW 6 Sarwan. PW 3 Mobas statement further finds corroboration from the statements of PW 2 Mst. Jamani and PW 4 Amarchand, who stated that Moba gave them the details of the deceit played upon him and Mst. Durga by the two accused-appellants. The statements of Amarchand PW 4 and Mst. Jamani PW 2 can be read as a corroborative piece of evidence in support of Mobas statement under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramratan vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). 14. The trial Court after full analysis of the evidence, keeping in view the infirmities pointed by learned counsel appearing before him, has held it advisable to place reliance on the statement of Mst. Durga and other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellate court should not ordinarily interfere with the trial Courts opinion as to the credibility of a witness as the trial Judge alone knows the demeanour of the witness; he alone can appreciate the manner in which the questions are answered, whether with honest candour or with doubtful plausibility, and whether after careful thought, or with reckless glibness; and he alone can form a reliable opinion as to whether the witness had amerged with credit from a cross-examination. Reference may be made to Valarshak Seth Apear vs. Standard Coal Co., Ltd. (2). 15. Lastly it was urged that the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. The benefit of doubt to which the accused can claim consideration should be reasonable doubt and not the doubt of a weak and vacillating mind. Reference may be made to Himachal Pradesh Administration vs. Om Prakash (3). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the law as under:— "......the maxim that the accused should be given the benefit of doubt because pivotal in the prosecution of offenders which in other words means that the prosecution must prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt by a sufficiency of credible evidence. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the law as under:— "......the maxim that the accused should be given the benefit of doubt because pivotal in the prosecution of offenders which in other words means that the prosecution must prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt by a sufficiency of credible evidence. The benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled is reasonable doubt—the doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy—though unwittingly it may be-or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given or as one great judge said it is "not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism". It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so the law would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if not thwarting it altogether. It is for this reason the phrase has been criticised. Lord Goddard C.J. in Rex vs. Kritz, (1950) I KB 82 at p. 90 said that when in explaining to the juries what the prosecution has to establish a Judge begins to use the words "reasonable doubt" and to try to explain what is a reasonable doubt and what is not, he is much more likely to confuse the July than if he tells them in plain language. "It is the duty of the prosecution to satisfy you of the prisoners guilt". What in effect this approach amounts to is that the greatest possible care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is clearly established which burden is always in the accusatory system, on the prosecution. "It is the duty of the prosecution to satisfy you of the prisoners guilt". What in effect this approach amounts to is that the greatest possible care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is clearly established which burden is always in the accusatory system, on the prosecution. The mere fact that there is only a remote possibility in favour of the accused is itself sufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt." In my opinion, the prosecution evidence considered as a whole with the fact that accused have not come out with any specific defence, does not create any reasonable doubt in favour of the accused-appellant. 16. I uphold the conviction of both the accused-appellants under Section 366, I.P.C. However, as the evidence regarding keeping Mst. Durga in Ajmer under force and lock and key is insufficient I give benefit of doubt to accused-appellant Hariram alias Sriram and alter his conviction under Section 343 I.P.C. to that under Section 342, I.P.C. 17. Now remains the question of sentence. Both the accused-appellants are close relatives of the prosecutrix. One of them, namely Hariram alias Sriram is Sarpanch of the village To establish and develop Local Self Government in the rural areas of the State of Rajasthan, Panchayats were established. One cannot conceive of a Panchayat without its Sarpanch. He exercises considerable influence over the Government functionaries and has the authority to oblige persons of his choice. He is supposed to look after the interest of the down-troddon and weaker section of the society as well as of the weaker sex. When such an impor-tent person, who commands considerable influence in the village, community, starts traffcing in women, the Judges conscience bites. A Court is not a com-putor which registers what is fed into it answers by mechanical intelligence, but a humanist hunting down the truth with impartial tools unbiased but committed to conscience objective truth and public good. Persons who hold authoritative position like Hariram alias Sriram should not be allowed to carry an impression that inspite of nafarious activities they would be given advantage of their position and would be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Persons who hold authoritative position like Hariram alias Sriram should not be allowed to carry an impression that inspite of nafarious activities they would be given advantage of their position and would be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The accused have disturbed the peace of the humble home of a poor peasant by taking his wife away for the purpose of selling her knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or being compelled to marry against her will. The motive behind the crime was not love or intimacy but avarice and lust for money. The true purpose of penal treatment must taken into consideration social defence, redeemption of the convict from the life of crime and the satisfaction of the victim and the community that justice has been done in the case. An anti-social adventurer cannot claim for his injurious activities higher regard than for the defence of the society itself. He must be made to understand that crimes have their silent tongue which roar and echoes in the atmosphere and ultimately the law takes its own course. It will not be a small gain to the people at large, if it succeeds in exploring the basic honesty in persons who hold important position like that of a Sarpanch of a Panchayat and other walk of life, at least out of fear if not from in-innate decency. Courts are not expected to show undue complacence towards them. 18. The net result of the above discussion is that I uphold the conviction of both the accused-appellants, namely, Hariram alias Sriram and Phoola under Section 366, I.P.C. and in the alternative they are convicted under Section 365, I.P.C, but the sentence awarded to them is reduced from three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment. The conviction of accused-appellant Hariram alias Sriram under Section 343, I.P.C. is altered to Section 342. I.P.C. and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to one months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellant Phoola under section 342, I.P.C. is maintained. The conviction of accused-appellant Hariram alias Sriram under Section 343, I.P.C. is altered to Section 342. I.P.C. and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to one months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellant Phoola under section 342, I.P.C. is maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonments awarded to both the accused-appellants under all the counts shall run concurrently. 19. It is, however, made clear that the accused-appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428, Cr.P.C. and the period of detention undergone by them during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the term of sentence awarded by this Court. 20. The accused-appellants are on bail. They are not before me. The learned trial Court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against them, get them arrested and send them to jail for undergoing the remaining terms of sentences, awarded by this Court. The learned Judge is further directed to send compliance report within three months.