A. N. DIKSHITA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 21. 4. 1978 in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 1975 passed by Sri Sharda Prasad Srivastava, II Addi. Sessions Judge, Bijnor, convicting the appellants under section 120b IPC and under section 342 read with section 120b IPC, but in spite of finding the accused persons guilty of the offences each of them have been released on probation of good conduct with a direction that each of them shall furnish a bond of Rs. 1000/- with two sureties each in the like amount during the period of six months and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 120b IPC, and for a period of six months under section 342 read with Section 120b IPC. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story is that accused Shamsuddin, is a resident of village Qasampur Garhi. His sister Smt. Anisa is married to one Shamsuddin son of Abdul Shakoor resident of village Zikri Wala situate within the jurisdiction of police station Afzalgarh, district Bijnor. Relations between the two families were cordial but with the passage of rime relations, some how or the other, became strained so much so that even divorce with Smt. Anisa was sought which was resisted by the family of the husband and the husband himself. Even settlement before paochayat could be of no avail. However, as the father of the girl was insistent on divorce, a conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons to secure the signatures of Shamsuddin husband of Smt. Anisa on some stamp paper. Pursuant to this Shamsuddin who was working on the crusher of one Ram Gopal, Was beckoned by Sharafat and Babu and then took him to the house of Imamuddin in qasba Afzalgarh on 22nd of April 1973 at about 11. 30 a. m. Admittedly Shamsuddin was residing at the village with his sister and used to take meals with his brother in-law. It is thus alleged that all the accused wrongfully confined Shamsuddin order to perpetuate their design to obtain the thumb mark on the stamp paper so as to secure the divorce. 30 a. m. Admittedly Shamsuddin was residing at the village with his sister and used to take meals with his brother in-law. It is thus alleged that all the accused wrongfully confined Shamsuddin order to perpetuate their design to obtain the thumb mark on the stamp paper so as to secure the divorce. Shamsuddin was asked to put his thumb on the blank stamp paper which was purchased from one Sri Basdeo Prasad a Stamp Vendor, but he dissuaded himself and did not put his thumb impression on that stamp paper and went away from the house. ( 3 ) THE accused were charged under Sections 120b, 364 read with Section 120b, 341/120b and 465 read with Section 120b of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) ALL the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against them. They asserted that they have been falsely implicated in the case on account of hostility of the step mother of Shamsuddin towards him and his wife Smt. Anisa. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined Abdul Shakoor, Shamsuddin husband of Smt. Anisa, Imamuddin, Alimuddin son of Abdul Rahim and Sagheer Ahmad as witnesses of fact to support the prosecution version. ( 6 ) THE accused did not examine any witness in defence. ( 7 ) THE trial court found that no case under Section 364 read with section 120b IPC, had been established against the accused persons. Likewise the charge under section 465 IPC read with Section. 120b also failed against them. However, the trial court, on the testimony, on which the accused have been acquitted, found them guilty under Section 120 and 342 read with Section 120b I. P. C. ( 8 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the ingredients of section 340 so as to warrant conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC, have not been made out. It is not revealing from the testimony that Shamsuddin was ever wrongfully detained. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the ingredients of section 340 so as to warrant conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC, have not been made out. It is not revealing from the testimony that Shamsuddin was ever wrongfully detained. No doubt he was taken to the house of one Babu so as to secure thumb impression on a blank stamp paper, as the prosecution story is, but no force muchless a criminal force, was ever used at the time when Shamsuddin was taken to the house of Habu, though an improvement has been made in the prosecution version that Shamsuddin was dragged to the house of Babu which appears to be less believable. This statement of Sagheer Ahmad that Shamsuddin was being dragged to the house of Babu hardly inspires confidence. Further, the story of procurring thumb impression on a blank stamp paper does not appear to be well founded for the simple reason that the stamp vendor who has been produced as P. W. 5, has not entered the sale of the stamp paper in the register nor was the register produced. Even the name of the person who had purchased the stamp paper has not been disclosed either in the prosecution evidence or by P. W. 5 Basdeo Prasad. There is no doubt that all the persons to this sordid drama are relations. Matrimonial feuds in the present days have even dragged families into civil litigation, as well as false implication in criminal cases. This appears to be an instance. The court below lost sight of this solitary fact that the accused persons have been roped into the case more on account of hostility prevailing amongst them than on account of some criminal act having been done by either of them. It might be that Shamsuddin who was the brother-in-law of the other Shamsuddin may have been taken to the house of Babu with an intention, though not by himself but through his men Sharafat and Babu, in order to reach an amicable settlement instead of using any criminal force so as to wrongfully confine him for some other intention. In relationship, it cannot be ruled out that Sharafat and Babu might have requested Shamsuddin to visit the house of Babu for arriving at an amicable settlement where Shamsuddin was waiting. In relationship, it cannot be ruled out that Sharafat and Babu might have requested Shamsuddin to visit the house of Babu for arriving at an amicable settlement where Shamsuddin was waiting. This probability can be there irrespective of the hostile relationship because in family feud when strains reach the breaking point parties try to evolve an amicable formula to burry their angry hatchets into the dust. I am unable to agree with the finding of the trial court that the accused persons had wrongfully confined Shamsuddin in pursuance of illegal conspiracy. Even the charge of conspiracy has not been made out against the accused persons. I am at a loss to understand as to how the trial court, while discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 364 read with section 1208 and the offence under section 465 read with section 120b I. P. C. have been made out, still found the accused guilty of the offence under section 120b I. P. C. and Section 342 read with Section 120b I. P. C. ( 9 ) IT is again very interesting that the main victim Shamsuddin who was wrongfully confined has not supported the prosecution version. He no doubt admits that the relation between his father and his father-in-law are strained but otherwise he is living happily and enjoying the fruits of the wedlock. After this incident, when the parties of the girl side were determined for divorce, though neither the husband nor his wife was prepared to achieve it, they may have left the ground for some how as he states in his statement that he had gone to Delhi and had come after a long time. Indeed it does happen that a person in order to avoid such pressures be smirching his peaceful living wants to reside in a place where he may live comfortably, and peacefully. The so called victim joined his wife and it seems that by that time the hostility had frozen permitting the two to live happily to perform the marital obligations, ( 10 ) IN view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellants under Section 1208 and Section 342 read with Section 120b IPC, are set aside. The bail bonds executed by them shall stand discharged. .