JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 2nd February, 1977, by which the appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 366/511, IPC, and Section 323, IPC, and sentenced to six mouths' rigorous imprisonment for the first count and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo three months' simple imprisonment for the second count, with an order that out of the amount of fine, if deposited, Rs. 200/- may be given as compensation to PW 2 Smt. Hari. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are as under. Elder sister of Smt. Hari was betrothed to Narain appellant. She died only at the age of 6 or 7 years. Thereafter, Narain appellant wanted to marry Smt. Hari, which proposal was not acceptable to her father Uda. Panchayat in this connection was assembled to decide the matter about the return of money by Uda to Narain, because of the elder daughter of Uda having died. On 24-8-1975 at about 3.00 p.m., Smt. Hari was grazing cattle in the jungle. When she was sitting on Satimata-ka-Chabutara, the appellant along with three co-accused (since acquitted by the trial court) went there and dragged Smt. Hari from Chabutra. She sustained injuries. Chunnilal (PW 3) and Narain (PW 4) being attracted by the cry of Smt. Hari, rushed for her rescue. By that time the appellant had already left the place. Smt. Hari then went to her house and narrated the incident to her father. On the next morning Uda took Smt. Hari to Police Station, Mavli and lodged the written report Ex. P/6 before the SHO Bahadursingh, who after registering the case entrusted investigation to Naitrapal Singh, ASI Naitrapal Singh went to the sight on 27-8-1975 and inspected the sight and prepared the necessary memos. After completion of investigation charge-sheet against the appellant and three others was filed in the Collet of Munsif-Magistrate, Mavli. The learned Magistrate committed the appellant and the co-accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur, to stand their trial there. The learned Sessions Judge charge-sheeted the appellant and others for the offences under Section 366/114 and 323, IPC and on their denial for the indictments proceeded with the trial. To substantiate its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses in all. The appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr. The learned Sessions Judge charge-sheeted the appellant and others for the offences under Section 366/114 and 323, IPC and on their denial for the indictments proceeded with the trial. To substantiate its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses in all. The appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr. PC, denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that Smt. Hari was betrothed to him by her father Uda, as the elder daughter of Uda had died and the matter was settled by the Panchayat. He also stated that with an intention to marry her with some one else, Uda had connected a false case against the appellant. One defence witness Amarchand was examined to substantiate the defence plea about there being Panchayat to settle the dispute between Uda and Narain regarding engagement of Smt. Hari with Narain. The learned Sessions Judge held the prosecution case July established against the appellant and passed the judgment under repeal. The prosecution case against the other three co-accused was not held to be established and they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 3. I heard Mr. P.L. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor, and gave my anxious consideration to the material on record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that as the first information report was not filed in time and there is no explanation for the delay, it is quite evident that Uda has connected a false case against the appellant in order to get rid of him, who, as per decision of the Panchayat, was to be married to Smt. Hari. Mr. Choudhary vehemently argued that there is no corroboration to the solitary testimony of Smt. Hari that, and had there been any intention on the part of the appellant to take her away there was no hurdle in his way for doing so. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, controverting these contentions, submitted that in the circumstances of the case that there was a Panchayat regarding the dispute between Uda and the appellant for the girl, the intention of the appellant could not have been any thing other than to take Smt. Hari, to be his wife. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, controverting these contentions, submitted that in the circumstances of the case that there was a Panchayat regarding the dispute between Uda and the appellant for the girl, the intention of the appellant could not have been any thing other than to take Smt. Hari, to be his wife. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the very fact of the appellant causing injuries to the girl shows that force was used and if persons would not have come to rescue, the appellant would have been successful in taking away the girl with him. 6. There is no dispute on the point that Uda's elder daughter was betrothed to appellant Narain and after her death there was dispute between Uda and Narain. Smt. Hari has stated that Narain wanted Rs. 2,000/- from her father. Uda has also stated about the notice Ex. P/5 having been received by him from the appellant. There is no evidence to prove that Ex. P/5 was written by the appellant. Its contents are also not proved. In such circumstances all that can be said is that there was some dispute regarding the marriage of Nacain with Smt. Hari and Panchayat was assembled by both the parties twice. Amarchand (DW 2) has given the details about the Panchayat and the threat given by Uda, that after sending Narain in Jail he would give his daughter Hari in marriage to some one else. According to this defence witness Smt. Hari was engaged to appellant Narain. Whether there was in fact any engagement of Hari and the appellant or not, this much is certain that there was some demand by Narain appellant, which Uda, father of the prosecutrix, was reluctant to satisfy. 7. So far as the statement of Smt. Hari regarding the injuries sustained by her is concerned there is the corroborating evidence of Dr. Laxmi Narain (PW8), who after examining her injuries, had prepared the injury report Ex. P/9. The doctor had noted five abrasions on the person of Smt. Hari on 26-8-1975, two days after the alleged occurrence. Chunnilal (PW 3) and Narain (PW4) have also stated about Smt. Hari being at a little distance from Sati-mata's Chabutra'. In this view of the matter Smt. Hari sustaining injuries on the relevant date at the hands of the appellant is proved. 8. Chunnilal (PW 3) and Narain (PW4) have also stated about Smt. Hari being at a little distance from Sati-mata's Chabutra'. In this view of the matter Smt. Hari sustaining injuries on the relevant date at the hands of the appellant is proved. 8. Coming to the conviction for the offence under Section 366/511, I.P.C., I am inclined to hold that prosecution has not been able to substantiate this charge. The reasons for this conclusions are as under: 9. The two witnesses Chunnilal and Narain have not supported the prosecution case about the three co-accused. (who have been acquitted at the trial) participating in the crime. The learned trial judge has also expressed the opinion that there is improvement in the case. The first information report was lodged in the afternoon of the next day despite the police station being only at a distance of eight miles from the village of the prosecutrix. This is also evident that Smt. Hari had reached her house and narrated the incident to her father when it was still day light. There is no explanation for this unexplained delay, and I am unable to agree with the learned trial judge, that, that time might have been utilised for setting the matter. Assuming arguando, there was any talk about the settlement, that attempt would go in favour of the accused and not in favour of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant therefore, has a legitimate argument, that this was utilised in making out a story in which the appellant may be involved and thrown away from the way of marrying Smt. Hari to some one else. Delay in lodging information is not in all cases fatal to the prosecution. But in case like the present one where there are peculiar circumstances for holding that Uda was inimical to the appellant, this delay assumes importance and if there are other factors helping the defence, this delay may be taken into consideration. 10. From the statement of Smt. Hari, even if taken on its face value, it is not spelt out that intention of the appellant was to take her away for any of the purposes enumerated in Section 366, I.P.C. Smt. Hari has stated that the appellant had asked her to go with him to Bombay and he would keep her at liberty. The term used is 'TUJHE AAZAD RAKHUNGA'. The term used is 'TUJHE AAZAD RAKHUNGA'. In her cross-examination also she has repeated the same sentence. If that was so, then there arises no question of the appellant taking the girl with the intention to marry her against her will or to seduce to illicit intercourse. Smt. Hari has stated that when Chunnilal and Narain reached the site, she told them that the appellant wanted to take her away as his wife. This version of the piosecutrix is not believable for two reasons, firstly, she no where states that any such thing was told by the appellant to her and secondly; neither Chunnilal, nor Narain states about the girl telling any such thing to them. Chunnilal has simply stated that the girl told him that Narain son of Moda tried to drag her and told her that he will take her to Bombay. The important point emerging for consideration in this respect is that had there been any such apprehension of being taken away by the accused, the girl would not have gone to the house alone after the incident. She in that case would have asked Narain and Chunnilal to escort her to her house Chunnilal and Narain had not been the appellant there at the site. Both of them are said to have reached the place of occurrence together. According to Chunnilal when he reached near the girl, the appellant had left the place and was seen at a distance of two 'Doris'. The measurement of one 'Dori' given by the witness is 80 hands'. Narain witness has denied to have seen the appellant at all at the site. If the story of the prosecutrix regarding the accused attempting to take her away forcibly would have been correct, the appellant might not have left her there, despite nobody reaching there for her rescue. In such circumstances the prosecution case about the accused having an intention to abduct the girl for the purposes enumerated in Section 366, I.P.C., cannot be said to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Hence conviction for the offence under Section 366/511, I.P.C. is not sustainable. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 366/511, I.P.C., is set aside. However, his conviction for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C., and sentence awarded to him for that count are maintained. The order for giving Rs. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 366/511, I.P.C., is set aside. However, his conviction for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C., and sentence awarded to him for that count are maintained. The order for giving Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) to Smt. Hari out of the amount of fine imposed for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C., is maintained. 12. At the request of Mr. P.L. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, two months' time is granted to the appellant to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court.Appeal partly allowed. *******