JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal appeal against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, dated 30-3-1978 by which he has convicted the accused appellants under Section 366 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 3 years R.I. and has further convicted accused appellant Chatru u/s 342 IPC and sentenced him to 6 months R.I. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix Mst. Prem was married to one Murari, who died soon after the marriage. Thereafter, Mst. Prem is said to have started living in Nata as wife with complainant Kastura. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused appellants and one Shiv Lal, who was acquitted by the trial court, call Panchayat meeting of Jogis on 27-6-76, where Mst. Prem and Kastura were also summoned to be present. As per the custom prevailant in the community, the Panchayat asked Kastura that if he wanted to keep Prem as his wife, he should pay Rs. 20,000/- to Kanhaiya Lal, father-in-law of Prem. Kastura expressed inability to pay this much amount, thereupon, it is alleged that appellants alongwith Shiv Lal forcibly took away Mst. Prem from the Panchayat. 3. Learned trial court after recording statements of as many as 7 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, examining the accused appellants u/s 313 Cr. PC and examining the defence witnesses, acquitted the accused Shiv Lal and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the terms indicated above. 4. I have heard Mr. S. K. Gupta learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that it is pertinent to note that even though the incident is said to have taken place on 27-6-76 but no FIR was lodged by the complainant soon thereafter, which was natural to have been done by him, but instead he preferred to file a private complaint in the Court as late as on 17-7-76. It has been pointed out that complainant Kastura has failed to explain the delay and merely by stating that he was searching Mst. Prem, therefore, could not file the FIR or complaint earlier, does not give out the real reason behind the delay. It has been pointed out that complainant Kastura has failed to explain the delay and merely by stating that he was searching Mst. Prem, therefore, could not file the FIR or complaint earlier, does not give out the real reason behind the delay. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that this is a concocted story and the FIR has been lodged with a view to harass the appellants, in which the complainant has been successful to some extent. It has also been pointed out that the learned trial court has mainly relied upon the statement of the prosecutrix Mst. Prem (PW 7) and Kastura (PW 1) who have supported the story as disclosed in the complaint filed in the court. The prosecutrix has named the present 4 appellants, who according to her forcibly took her away from the Panchayat and did not name Shiv Lal, therefore, the trial court acquitted Shiv Lal and relying upon the statement of PW 7, which is supported by PW 1 Kastura convicted the accused appellants. PW 3 Chotu in his statement has stated that when Kastura said in Panchayat, which was held in village Karsai, that he was prepared to pay Rs. 20,000/- as penalty, which was not acceptable to the panchayat thereupon all the accused persons including Shiv Lal are said to have put off the gas light and took away the prosecutrix along with them. However, PW 6 even though supports this story to some extent and named all the 5 accused persons, but does not say that all the accused persons put off light all of sudden and has further said that they took away the prosecutrix alongwith them. It is contended that he does not say in clear words that she was forcibly taken away by the accused persons. Moreover, he has identified only Chatru and Sanwaliya and has clearly stated that he cannot identify any other person. Learned counsel has drawn my attention pointed to the statement of Kanhaiya, PW 4, who is father-in-law of the prosecutrix. In his statement, he has stated that after the death of Murari, as per the custom prevailant in their community, the prosecutrix was kept in Nata with his younger son, who happened to be about 10 years old. The prosecutrix remained few months in his house, but thereafter went away to her fathers house. In his statement, he has stated that after the death of Murari, as per the custom prevailant in their community, the prosecutrix was kept in Nata with his younger son, who happened to be about 10 years old. The prosecutrix remained few months in his house, but thereafter went away to her fathers house. From there she is said to have went and sat in Nata with Kastura as per her own desire. He has further stated that Panchayat was called in Karsai of Jogi community where he was called upon by the Panchas to pay Rs. 20,000/- Jhagada money. Thereupon Kastura expressed his inability and wanted to pay Rs. 2000/- as Jhagada maney and Rs. 500/- as fine or penalty. Since Kastura did not accept to pay this amount, prosecutrix Prem went away with her father. He further states that thereafter Prem started living in Nata with the accused appellant Chatru. A second Panchayt was held in village Sahajapur where Chatru paid Rs. 3590/- as Jhagada money to the father-in-law of the prosecutrix Kanhaiya Lal himself. He has also proved the document Ex. D.l, which bears the signatures of several other persons including thumb impression of Kanhaiya Lal PW 4. Apart from this PW 1 Ramjilal is also a person who was present when the Panchayat was held at Karsai. He has stated in his statement that when Kastura did not pay Jhagada money, she went away with her father and there was no question of any abduction of Mst. Prem by accused appellant and Shiv Lal. DW 2 Prabhu was also present at panchayat Karsai and her supported the version given by DW 1. Subudhi, DW 3 who has also signed the document Ex. D. has deposed that he was present at Panchayat Sahajapur and has stated that Jhagada money of Rs. 3500/ was paid by Chatru to Kanchaiya Lal, PW 4, who is father-in-law of Mst. Prem. 6. Apart from this Mst. Prem was examined under Section 164 Cr. PC before the Magistrate, in which even though she has stated that she was forcibly taken away from Panchayat Karsai, but she has stated that about 20 Jogis took her away, but has not named any of the persons who are alleged to have abducted her from Panchayat Karsai. She further states in her statement that thereafter she was kept in the house of Chatru. 7. She further states in her statement that thereafter she was kept in the house of Chatru. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has on the other hand supported the judgment of the trial court and has stated that the trial court has rightly relied upon the statements of the prosecutrix Prem, Kastura and other witnesses who fully supported the version given by the prosecution. He has further stated that PW 4 Kanhaiya Lal father-in-law of prosecutrix Prem has been declared hostile and therefore, he is not a reliable witness and the trial court has rightly discarded his evidence. 8. It will be seen from the evidence discussed above that there is no satisfactory explanation whatsoever for not lodging the FIR immediately after the incident and for filing the complaint as late as about 20 days. This is a very crucial gap which casts a shadow of doubt on the version of the complainant. It is also pertinent to note that when prosecutrix Prem was examined before the Magistrate as early as 16-8-76, under Section 164 Cr. PC she has not named any of the accused appellants to have abducted her from Panchayat Karsai. This also shows that she has improved the version at the behest of Kastura, PW 1 with whom she is presently living. I also do not find any reason to discard the testimony of PW 4 Kanhaiya Lal, who has given a correct version regarding the incidents which took place after the death of his son Murari, first husband of Mst. Prem. The other witness produced on behalf of the appellants also inspire confidence and their version seems to be more reliable Moreover, when the whole Panchayat is sitting, which consisting of several hundred persons it is difficult to visualise a loud home Panchayat called before it, was abducted in their presence and all Panchas were sitting silent as mere spectators which is not natural behaviour where so many persons of particular community or village are sitting in judgment for a particular event that had taken place in their community. It may also be added that none of the Panchas have been examined, who may have given their own version of the events that took place at the relevant time in their Panchayat. 9. It may also be added that none of the Panchas have been examined, who may have given their own version of the events that took place at the relevant time in their Panchayat. 9. The accused appellants have already been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC by the learned trial court and I am of the opinion that no offence under Section 366 IPC against all the appellants and under section 342 against appellant Chatru is made out. 10. In the result, this appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellants is set-aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelling against them. The appellants are on bail and their bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******