T. N. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) CHARGES under sections 376, 511 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code were preferred on the basis of F. I. R. lodged and charge-sheet submitted and the accused appellant, aged 50 years at time of occurrence, stood trial there under. Because in the course of trial, the prosecution story changed, the charge also changed in conviction, which was made under section 354, Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) WHAT has come out in evidence, it is submitted by Shri S. L. Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, does not make out any offence against the appellant. He has placed the entire evidence before me and I have heard Shri O. P. Namdeo, learned Dy. Govt. Adv. , for the State. I have no doubt that the contention raised is forceful and substantial. I say so after considering the evidence and the facts and other circumstances proved in the case. ( 3 ) IN the F. I. R. , a horrid and horrible picture was put up making out a strong case of gross indecent assault laying thread barred naked facts about naked bodies. Unfortunately everything evaporated when evidence was taken. The girls father P. W. 2 Bhagwan Das deposed very few things. He gave up totally the story which he had set up in the F. I. R. The only fact to which he deposed in Court was that when he was informed by P. Ws. 3 and 4 that his daughter P. W. 1 Laxmibai (aged 4 years) was locked up in a room by a neighbour of the accused appellant, he rushed from the place of work and he saw through the opening of the door that the accused appellant was lying on a cot and the girl was sitting on his stomach. He did not see any naked body; he did not see any indecent act or assault. It is also his evidence that when he knocked at the door, it was immediately opened and the girl came out. True it is that he also deposed that the girl was weeping, but it is equally true that the other witnesses who were also present at that time at the place of occurrence, viz. , P. Ws. 3 and 4, did not say that it was so. True it is that he also deposed that the girl was weeping, but it is equally true that the other witnesses who were also present at that time at the place of occurrence, viz. , P. Ws. 3 and 4, did not say that it was so. Their evidence is that the girl came out and she showed no signs of stress or emotions and she made no complaint to her father in their presence. ( 4 ) THE defence case was that prosecution was instituted against him at the instance of persons inimically disposed to him. Considering the circumstances of the case, I also feel disposed to take the view that because some misreporting or exaggerated reporting was made to the girls father P. W. 2, he lodged the F. I. R. with the exaggerated version on the lines of the reports made to him. There is no other explanation otherwise for the fact that in the evidence, he had given up wholly the version he had set up in the F. I. R. ( 5 ) P. WS. 2, 3 and 4 who were present on the scene when the door was opened, deposed that the girl as also the appellant were fully dressed. The girl, though a child witness, in her evidence also said that her underwear was not taken off and she remained fully dressed inside the house. It is also her evidence that that was not the first day that she had come to the house of the accused appellant. It is her evidence that her father and the accused appellant were on good terms which is also the evidence of other witnesses. Further, she has also deposed that she used to visit the house of the accused appellant from time to time and she was given sweets by the accused appellant who affectionately treated her. ( 6 ) ON the evidence discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, I am convinced that no case for conviction of the appellant under section 354. I. P. C. is made out. Insofar as conviction under section 342 of the I. P. C. is concerned, there is equally deficient material inasmuch as no ingredient of wrongful confinement is made out, because it is not established that the girl was detained inside the house forcibly against her will. I. P. C. is made out. Insofar as conviction under section 342 of the I. P. C. is concerned, there is equally deficient material inasmuch as no ingredient of wrongful confinement is made out, because it is not established that the girl was detained inside the house forcibly against her will. Indeed it is not in the evidence at all that the accused appellant lured the girl and confined her in his house with any ulterior motive. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the logical conclusion which I have reached is that no offence against the accused appellant has been made out under section 354 or even under section 342 of the I. P. C. Accordingly, convictions and sentences passed against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. .