JUDGMENT N.K. Singh, J. In this appeal, the two appellants have challenged their convictions, under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, and the sentences of-rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, imposed upon each of them, thereunder. Ku. Jamunabai, alleged to be 14 years of age, is the daughter of Ramswaroop P.W. 4, a small business-man of Ambah town, and resides with her parents at their house, in Ward No. 4 of that town, infront of Porsa-road. It was alleged by the prosecution, that on 26-8-1980, at about 9 P.M., Ramswaroop P. W. 4 was dining inside the house along with his brothers Ramprakash P. W. 1 and one Ashok who has not been examined as a witness. Jamunabai had accompanied her younger sister Gudia, outside the house, in order that she may ease herself. At this point of time, the appellants, both of whom are motor truck drivers, alighted from truck No. US.A. 3480, and caught hold of Jamunabai. They dragged her inside the truck and drove her away on Morena road. Gudia raised an alaram, as a result of which Ramprakash P. W. 1, Ramswaroop P. W. 4 and Ashok rushed outside the house. They jumped into a jeep, belonging to their relative, which happened Jo be parked infront of their house and followed the truck. The truck was overtaken by the jeep near the Post Office, Ambah, as a result of which the appellants halted the truck, after driving it in reverse for a short distance. They jumped outside the truck along with the girl. In the meanwhile, Sitaram P. W. 5 and persons named Sukhram and Ram-karan also happened to come there. Confronted by them and the uncles of the girl, appellant Intzar brandished a knife and threatened to kill anyone who dared interfere. The appellants dragged away Jamunabai on the knife point to the house of accused Munna Lohar in Sadar Bazar locality, where she was recovered sometime later in the night. However, the appellants ran away from Munna's house upon sighting the witnesses along with the police-party which happened to accompany them on the way. The appellants dragged away Jamunabai on the knife point to the house of accused Munna Lohar in Sadar Bazar locality, where she was recovered sometime later in the night. However, the appellants ran away from Munna's house upon sighting the witnesses along with the police-party which happened to accompany them on the way. In the trial Court, besides Jamunabai P. W 7, who is alleged to have been kidnapped, Ram Prakash P.W.I, Shriniwas Sharma P. W. 3, Ramswaroop P. W. 4, Sitaram P. W. 5 and Amarsingh P. W. 6, have been examined as the witnesses to different parts of the incident. Common charges in respect of the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 354, 506 (later Part) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants and the third accused Munna Lobar, on the basis of the charge sheet put up against them. Upon an assessment of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge, has acquitted the third accused Munna Lohar of all the charges and the appellants also of all the charges except that under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. As already stated, each of the two appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, for the offence under section 363, Indian Penal Code. It is for consideration in this appeal, as to whether Jamunabai P. W. 7 is a minor and was kidnapped out of her lawful guardianship, by the appellants ? The learned Additional Government Advocate took me through the prosecution evidence, while the learned counsel for the appellants challenged the convictions mainly on the grounds that the oral testimony was unnatural, interested and contradictory, as well, that the prosecution had not been able to establish Jamunabai's age, so as to prove that she was a minor, on the date of the alleged incident. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by the counsel on both the sides and have gone through the evidence carefully. Having done so, I am of the clear opinion, that the convictions of the appellants cannot be sustained, for several reasons. First of all, though, as is oft repeated, truth is stranger than fiction, yet giving all the available margin, it cannot be gainsaid that the prosecution story in the case does not sound natural. Having done so, I am of the clear opinion, that the convictions of the appellants cannot be sustained, for several reasons. First of all, though, as is oft repeated, truth is stranger than fiction, yet giving all the available margin, it cannot be gainsaid that the prosecution story in the case does not sound natural. Unless, utter lawlessness is prevailing in Ambah town (unfortunately, the incidents of such lawlessness come to notice from time to time, at one place or the other) the kidnapping of a girl right from her parents' house, situate in a thick locality of the township, which is also a Sub-Divisional Headquarter, as early as at 9 P. M., can only be swallowed with a pinch of salt. It is strange that while the girl was kidnapped or abducted, and fortunately recovered after a hot chase, not a single independent witness from any among the concerning localities could be secured by the prosecution. The witnesses to the occurrence Ramprakash P. W. 1 and Ramswaroop P. W. 4, are respectively the uncle and the father of the girl; Shriniwas Sharma P. W. 3 is an Assistant Police Sub-Inspector who is said to have been on the night round, Sitaram P. W. 5 and persons named Sukhram and Ramkaran, who are said to have come across when the truck was overtaken by the jeep, do not belong to the locality where it was overtaken, but reside in close neighbourhood of Ramswaroop P. W. 1. Though, as admitted by the witnesses, the place of overtaking is surrounded by shops and close to a Cinema house, nobody from there has been examined as a witness. Amarsingh P. W. 6 also does not belong to Sadar Bazar, where the girl is alleged to have been dragged., The learned trial Judge has, in course of his judgment rightly noted the point of interestedness of the witnesses, but, after having paid lip service to the rule of caution relating to close scrutiny of such evidence, does not appear to have gone deep into the matter. To cut a long story short, in my opinion, the following points give rise to serious doubts in regard to the truth of the alleged prosecution story :- (i) The interestedness of the witnesses and their chance appearances at the spots relating to different stages of the incident. To cut a long story short, in my opinion, the following points give rise to serious doubts in regard to the truth of the alleged prosecution story :- (i) The interestedness of the witnesses and their chance appearances at the spots relating to different stages of the incident. (ii) The off hand nature of the story, where a girl residing with her father and uncles is picked up forcibly by strangers from her own house, situate in the thick of the town. (iii) The improbability of as many as six persons, namely Ram-prakash P. W. 1, Ram Swaroop P. W. 4, Sitaram P. W. 6, Ashok, Ram-karan and Sukhram, having been scared by mere show of knife by appellant Intezar/Mota and the alleged successful dragging of Ku. Jamunabai, and unwilling hostage, by the two appellants, for a long distance, upto the house of Munna in Sadar Bazar. It is also not explained as to how the witnesses lost track of the girl, and could not follow the appellants, at least at a safe distance upto Munna's house. (iv) The contradictions in the version as given in the F.I.R. (Ex. P-l) and the oral testimony, in so far as in the F.I.R. the truck is shown to have been moving when overtaken by the jeep, but in the later, has been shown to have been stationary, when overtaken. Also, why did the truck stop, while being chased ? (v) The successful chase of the truck by Ashok, who, as admitted by witnesses in cross-examination, has learnt driving recently and has never taken the vehicle outside Ambah town, by himself. Non-examination of Ashok, a material witness, is not explained. The jeep belongs to a relative and is never parked in front of Ramswaroop's house, except on the night when the incident took place, too fortuitous a circumstance to be ignored. (vi) The time of recording the F.I.R. Ex. P-l is noted as 10 P.M. Though Jamuna is shown to have accompanied her father and uncle to the police station, in her recovery memo. Ex. (vi) The time of recording the F.I.R. Ex. P-l is noted as 10 P.M. Though Jamuna is shown to have accompanied her father and uncle to the police station, in her recovery memo. Ex. P-4, from Munna's house, the time of recovery is recorded as 10.40 P.M. However to top it, S.I. Police Suresh Chandra Sharma P.W. 9, has in para.2 of his statement given the recovery time as 8.40 P.M. (vii) The recovery is alleged to have been made on 28-6-1980, but the investigating Officer has given the date below his signature as 29-6-1980, which, as stated by him in cross-examination as P. W. 9, was due to mistake. (viii) Surprisingly, the truck used in alleged kidnapping and stated to have been abandoned by the appellants on 28-6-1980 was not seized by the police, as late as till 2-7-1980 and that too from the possession of its owner, vide Ex. P-8. (ix) Jamunabai, P. W. 7, states that she was confined inside Munna's house for more than halt' an hour, but according to other witnesses, she was in the open, in front of Munna's house, when sighted by the witnesses, including the police-party. (x) According to Jamunabai P. W. 7, after being dragged, the appellants pushed her inside the truck through the window and not through the door opening. To push an willing adolescent girl inside the truck cabin, through the window within seconds, is a feat difficult to imagine, to make her run for a long distance, while being chased by six persons, is another feat all the more difficult to imagine. There are many more contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution case and the evidence adduced to support it, but it is needless to repeat the same. It is surprising that all these improbabilities and inconsistencies of the case should escape the so called 'close scrutiny' of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who is a senior Judicial Officer, of long standing experience. In any case, the prosecution evidence in the case is completely unreliable. However, it is not improbable that some embarassing incident involving Jamunabai and one or more among the accused persons might have taken place. But, the incident has not taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Consequently, the prosecution story, as sought to be made out in the Court, does not deserve to be touched by a pair of tongs. But, the incident has not taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Consequently, the prosecution story, as sought to be made out in the Court, does not deserve to be touched by a pair of tongs. On the basis of the discussion above, it is obvious, that the appeal has to be allowed and the convictions of the appellants liable to be set aside. However, before parting with the case, it may be noted, that the appeal is also liable to be allowed on the count, that the prosecution has not been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the minority of Ku. Jamuna. The sole document relied on by the prosecution to prove that she was a minor, her date of birth being 15-10-1965, is a certificate (Ex. P-5) purporting to be issued by the Principal of a Private Higher Secondary School. However, this is not a primary evidence, since, even the true copies of the entries made in the School Register, have not been filed. Further, as stated by Principal Ramniwas Sharma P. W. 8, the entries in the school Register were made on the basis of a Transfer Certificate issued from another School. Father of the girl, Ramswaroop P. W. 4 has not given her date of birth, nor testified to the fact that he got the date of birth recorded, when Jamunabai was initially admitted in the School for admission. On the point of age on the basis of entries in the School Register, reference is invited to the cases Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha AIR 1965 SC 282 , Munnalal v. State oj M.P. 1977 JLJ 731 and Lalta Prasad v. State of M.P. AIR 1979 SC 1976. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, may usefully refer to these cases. It is, thus clear that the prosecution has not been able to establish the fact of minority of Jamunabai, on the date of illegal occurrence. For this reason also, the convictions of the appellants for the alleged offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be supported. The result is that the appeal is allowed. The convictions of the appellants under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences imposed on them, thereunder, are, hereby, set aside, and the appellants are acquitted. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed