Judgment R.C.Deo Sharma, J. 1. The two appellants have been convicted by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge of Hardoi by his order dated 29th July 1981 for offences under sections 363 and 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default to undergo a further Rl for six months under section 366 IPC. THEy have not been awarded a separate sentence under section 363 IPC. THE charge under section 376 IPC made against both of them, however, failed and they were acquitted of that charge. 2. The girl who was kidnapped in this case was Kumari Sushila aged about 13 or 14 at the time of occurrence!. Her brother Banshi Lal lodged a report at the police station Bilgram whiich was about eight miles from the village of the complainant. It was alleged therein that his sister Kumari Sushila had gone to throw some rubbish near the Gonda of Ram Swarup shortly before sunset and did not return. He made a search for the girl but she could not be traced and hence the next day i. e. on 20-1-1978 at about 3.30 P. M. he lodged a report naming Sahab Lal appellant as the person who was suspected for kidnapping the girl. It is alleged that the girl returned home on 20-1-1978 and when her brother came back from the police station she was already there. Banshi Lal took his sister to the police station the next day i. e. on 21-1-1978 to inform the Sub-Inspector that she had come back. Investigations were taken up. Sub- lnspector Vinod Kumar Sharma who investigated the case interrogated Banshi Lal, his sister Kumari Sushila and other witnesses. She was sent for medical examination and in due course a charge sheet was submitted against both the appellants. The evidence adduced at the trial consisted of the statements of Banshi Lal, the informant, Kumari Sushila who was kidnapped and the investigating officer Vinod Kumar Sharma. The lady doctor who examined Kumari Sushila and Dr. J. K. Varma who did X-ray examination in order to determine the age etc. of the girl were also examined. The appellants denied their participation in the crime and alleged that they had been implicated on account of enmity. No evidence was adduced in defence. 3. The lady doctor who examined Kumari Sushila and Dr. J. K. Varma who did X-ray examination in order to determine the age etc. of the girl were also examined. The appellants denied their participation in the crime and alleged that they had been implicated on account of enmity. No evidence was adduced in defence. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on a consideration of the evidence found that the case had been fully established so far as offences under sections 363 and 366 IPC were concerned, and accordingly convicted both the appellants as above. THE offence under section 376 IPC was, however found not to have been made out in view of the medical evidence indicating no fresh signs of rape having been committed and the girl having been found used to sexual intercourse. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal and it has been contended that the findings recorded were against facts and law and that the appellants were entitled to be acquitted. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also for the State and have been taken through the entire evidence on record. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that so far as the FIR is concerned only suspicion was expressed against Saheb Lal but not a word was said against Sant Ram. That was very natural and rather a truthful version given by Banshi Lal with no effort to implicate any body falsely. When the girl came back home the next day after getting an opportunity when the appellants were away and was taken to the police station, she was Interrogated and at that stage the name of Sant Ram came to light. She also mentioned a third person amongst the kidnappers but could not give his name and said that she could only identify him if produced. However, no test identification parade was held and none else was arrested. I do not therefore, find any infirmity in the FIR. It was next argued that Kumari Sushila was found to be a girl of easy virtue and therefore, should not have been believed. However, no test identification parade was held and none else was arrested. I do not therefore, find any infirmity in the FIR. It was next argued that Kumari Sushila was found to be a girl of easy virtue and therefore, should not have been believed. Simply because the doctor has found on the basis of medical examination that Kumari Sushila was used to sexual intercourse and no apparent signs of rape were detected, it could not be said that whatever she would state about her kidnappers would be a falsehood or that she would implicate an unconcerned innocent person. She had been cross-examined in detail and so far as Saheb Lal is concerned she could not be shaken. It was consistently stated that she had gone to throw some rubbish at point ' A' shown in the site plan where Saheb Lal approached and took her forcibly towards a field. She tried to shout for help but was gagged. That was not unnatural or unbelievable in the circumstances. Simply because the appellant's father had appeared as a witness long back in a case against the father of Banshi Lal, the informant, it could not be said that after such a lapse of time the informant would unnecessarily implicate this appellant and Kumari Sushila would start naming him for that reason. The suggestion has rightly been rejected. 5. As regards Sant Ram, I feel he is certainly entitled to acquittal. Kumari Sushila in her examination-in-chief stated that she knew Sant Ram from before but did not know the third person who was present in the field. It was for this reason that Saint Ram came to be named during Investigation. In her cross-examination, however, she clearly admitted that she did not know Sant Ram from before and he was also not put up for identification in jail. She further stated that her uncle Govind who also lived in the village had told her when she came back home that Sant Ram was also one of the persons involved in her kidnapping. She also stated and rather truthfully that it was for this reason that she had stated before the Sub-Inspector that Sant Ram was also one of the persons who had kidnapped her. In the face of this clear admission the case against Sant Ram was clearly rendered doubtful, if not totally false. She also stated and rather truthfully that it was for this reason that she had stated before the Sub-Inspector that Sant Ram was also one of the persons who had kidnapped her. In the face of this clear admission the case against Sant Ram was clearly rendered doubtful, if not totally false. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, however, tried to explain it by saying that in her examination-in-chief she claimed to have known Sant Ram from before and there was no reason to doubt that statement. This, in my opinion, was not a correct approach. After all, cross-examination is meant to test the veracity of the witnesses, and if the facts mentioned above have in a natural manner come out during her cross-examination, the benefit will certainly go to the appellant Sant Ram. That being so, no offence can be held proved against him. 6. It may also be observed that the offence under section 376 IPC has not been established against the appellants. IT has not been found as a fact that either Kumari Sushila was subjected to rape or she had received any injuries on any part of the body in an attempted rape. There is no evidence to indicate that the object behind the kidnapping was to marry the girl against her will or against the will of her guardian or to subject her to sexual intercourse contrary to law. True, that in large number of cases of this nature, the object behind kidnapping is what is mentioned in section 365 IPC, but merely on that presumption, without there being anything positive to support that presumption either in the form of circumstances or past conduct or evidence, it would be hazardous to infer that an offence under section 366 IPC has been made out. In my opinion, therefore, the appellant Saheb Lal should be convicted under section 363 IPC for which he war charged and which is a minor offence compared to one under section 366 IPC for which he has been sentenced. For this offence a sentence of three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. one thousand should meet the ends of justice. In view of what has been observed above, the appeal of Sant Ram is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against him are set aside. He is acquitted of the charges made against him. For this offence a sentence of three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. one thousand should meet the ends of justice. In view of what has been observed above, the appeal of Sant Ram is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against him are set aside. He is acquitted of the charges made against him. He is on bail and therefore, need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. The appeal of Saheb Lal is partly allowed. He is convicted under section 363 IPC and sentenced to three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) and in default of payment therefor to a further R. I. for six months. The conviction and sentence recorded under section 366 IPC are set aside and altered as above. He is also on bail and therefore, shall be taken into custody to serve out his remaining sentence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Hardoi shall report compliance within six weeks.