JUDGMENT 1. - This petition of appeal was received in this court from Harbilas and Ramlakhan through the Superintendent, District Jail, Dholpur, where the appellants were being detained at the time to serve the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them by the trial court by its order dated March 1, 1979. They were sentenced under section 365 I P C. to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence as aforementioned, was that on September 24, 1975, at about 5 or 5-30 p.m. the appellants, along with four others, raided the tube-well of Murlidhar (PW. 3) and abducted him and Pratap (PW. 31 from there. It is alleged that they also removed Murlidhar's gun from his hut at the tube-well and took it away. The First Information Report of the case was lodged by Mahilal (PW. 5) the same evening at 8 P.M He mentioned in that document that the occurrence had been witnessed by him and two other persons namely, Fateh Singh and Man Singh. 3. The prosecution story goes that three days after the occurrence there was an encounter between the police and the culprits resulting in the exchange of fire. The culprits made good their escape taking away with them Pratap Murlidhar (PW. 2) was left behind at the scene of encounter. He narrated the circumstances under which he had been abducted by the culprits and kept in wrongful confinement for three days. His statement was recorded by the police under section 161 Cr. P.C. It is alleged that Pratap (PW. 3) remained in the custody of the accused for nearly three moats. He escaped from their custody and went to the police to narrate his story to them Harbilas and Ramlakhan surrendered themselves to the police. On investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet against Harbilas and Ramlakhan for their trial under section 364, 365 and 395 I.P.C. 4. The learned trial judge framed charges against them under section 364, 365 and 382 I. P. C. Both of them denied these charges and claimed to be tried. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined among others Murlidhar, Pratap, Mahilal and Man Singh, as the witnesses in support of its case. The learned trial judge framed charges against them under section 364, 365 and 382 I. P. C. Both of them denied these charges and claimed to be tried. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined among others Murlidhar, Pratap, Mahilal and Man Singh, as the witnesses in support of its case. Man Singh did not support the prosecution story at all, Fateh Singh, the other alleged eye-witness of the occurrence was not examined in the trial. 6. It was on the basis of the evidence of Murlidhar, Pratap and Mahilal that the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the charge of abduction punishable under section 365 I. P. C. was proved against both Harbilas and Ramlakhan accused. He, however, held that the charge of dacoity punishable under section 395 I. P. C. was not proved. Consequently, the accused were acquitted of all the charges except the one punishable under section 365 1. P. C. 7. After hearing Mr. Sharma, learned counsel amicus, for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the state. I find that Murlidhar and Pratap, whose evidence was not believed by the learned trial judge in respect of the charge of dacoity are not believe worthy in respect of the charge of abduction ether. They are discrepant in maierial particulars. For example, Murlidhar, stated that when the culprits raided his tube-well he was sitting on the cot and his son Pratap was working on the fodder cutting machine nearby, Pratap on the other hand stated that both he and his father Murlidhar were sitting on the same cot at the time, and that lie was smoking HUKKA. According to Murlidhar, Mahilal was in his field at some distance from the tube-well and that on hearing his hue and cry he raised an out cry from the said field. Murlidhar made it clear that Mahilal did not come to the tube-well and that he kept shouting from the said field which was separated from the tube- well by another field with BAJRA crop standing therein. 8. Pratap, on the other hand, stated that Mahilal was ploughing vacant land adjoining to tube-well and that on hearing the noise he came to the tube-well accompanied by Man Singh and Fateh Singh. If Mohilal is to be believed he was collecting fodder in his field and not ploughing. 9. 8. Pratap, on the other hand, stated that Mahilal was ploughing vacant land adjoining to tube-well and that on hearing the noise he came to the tube-well accompanied by Man Singh and Fateh Singh. If Mohilal is to be believed he was collecting fodder in his field and not ploughing. 9. Murlidhar stated that Harbilas and Ramlakhan accused had belaboured him and his son Pratap According to Pratap. he was belaboured by two of the culprits other than Harbilas and Ramlakhan accused. 10. There are similar 'other discrepancies occurring in the statement of these witnesses. Their evidence is wholly unreliable. 11. The learned trial judge has Held that Mahilal was not present at the time of the occurrence. That being so, Mahilal's evidence could not possibly be relied upon to base any order of conviction on it. 12. The story regarding the encounter between the police and the culprits and the consequent release of Murlidhar from their custody has also not been proved by any satisfactory evidence. 13. All said and done.,therefore, there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused had abducted Murlidhar and Pratap PWs. The charge under section 365 I.P.C. therefore Tails. 14. Consequently the present appeal deserves to be allowed and I would accordingly allow it, set aside the order of conviction and sentence and instead acquit the accused. They shall be released forthwith if they the shill being held as prisoners in the Jail unless they are required to be detained in some other case. Sd/- K.S. Sidhu, J. *******