JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th August, 79, by which the appellants have been found guilty and sentenced as under - Madho - U/s. 366 IPC to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R.I. U/s. 379 IPC one month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' R.I. Devi Lal - U/s. 366 IPC to 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' R.I. Badri Lal - U/s. 366 IPC to 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' R.I. Mst. Dakha and Bhairon Lal - U/s. 379 IPC one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' R.L each U/s. 368 IPC 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six month' R.I. Prem Chand - U/s. 366 IPC read with Section 34 IPC 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' R.I. 2. On 25.4.76 Bhola lodged a report alleging that on the previous night his married daughter Mst. Phula had gone to answer the call of nature in the night at 11 p.m. and from there she did not return. He searched her but with no success. Next morning he was told by one Jagdish Singh that Phula has been taken on motorcycle by Devi Lal & Badri Lal and she has been handed over to accused Madho Lal. It was also alleged that her daughter had ornaments of both gold and silver on her body. On this report a case u/Ss 363 & 366 IPC was registered. After completing the usual investigation the police submitted challan against the accused-persons. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused-persons u/Ss. 379 and 366 IPC. Accused Madho was also charge-sheeted for the offence u/S. 376 IPC. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after concluding the trial found the accused appellants guilty of the offences u/Ss. 379 & 366 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused-persons u/Ss. 379 and 366 IPC. Accused Madho was also charge-sheeted for the offence u/S. 376 IPC. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after concluding the trial found the accused appellants guilty of the offences u/Ss. 379 & 366 IPC. Mst. Dakhan was also found guilty of the offence u/S. 368 IPC and he sentenced them as mentioned above. After filing this appeal appellant Bhairon Lal died and his appeal is abated. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that from the report Ex. PI submitted by Bhola it is not clear as to when this incident had taken place. No date has been mentioned oil this report Ex. PI when it was submitted and no date of incident has been mentioned in it, From the F.I.R. Ex. P10 it seems that the F.I..R. was prepared on 25-4-76 at 8 a.m. and it has been mentioned that the incident took place in the night intervening past Sunday and Monday. The learned Sessions Judge in the judgment has mentioned that this incident had taken place on 18-4-76. Mst. Phula (PWI) has not given definite date when she was abducted or kidnapped. Shri Bhola (PW2) father of the prosecutrix has stated that he reported in the police after 3-4 days when Phula was abducted in the night. According to Ex. P1 (report) in the night. Bhola searched his daughter and in the morning at 10-11 a m. Jagdish Singh met him and he told that he was informed by Devi Lal and Badri Lal that Modho had taken away Phula on motorcycle. Then on the next day he submitted this report. So according to this report the incident took place in the night intervening 23rd and 24th April 1976. So the difference in the statement of Bhola, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge and the fact that the date has not been mentioned on the report Ex. P1 creates doubt in the correctness of the date when Mst. Phula was abducted by the accused-persons. So there was delay in lodging the report at the Police Station and this delay has not been explained. I Whatever material on the record creates doubt in the date when this incident took place. 5. According to the prosecution case Mst. P1 creates doubt in the correctness of the date when Mst. Phula was abducted by the accused-persons. So there was delay in lodging the report at the Police Station and this delay has not been explained. I Whatever material on the record creates doubt in the date when this incident took place. 5. According to the prosecution case Mst. Phula had gone for natural call in the night at 11 p.m. According to Phula she had loose motions and twice she had gone in the night for natural call with her mother. Then for the third time she went for natural call alone. This statement is not believable. Her mother has not been examined and if her statement is believed that twice her mother went with her then there is no reason why she will not accompany her third time at 11 p.m. So this shows that this is a concocted story by Mst. Phuia. The actual fact has not been brought on the record of this case. It seems that Mst. Phula bad gone with accused Madho at her own consent, it is not believable story that she had been to natural call in the night at 11 p.m. and when she was returning she was forcible taken away by Devi Lal and Badri Lal and then handed over to Madho Lal who took her away on a motorcycle. The statement of Mst. Phula has been perused. She has stated that she was taken at different-different villages by Madho Lal and she was with Madho for number of days. They travelled in bus, in tempo, in truck and on motorcycle but at none place she raised hue and cry to attract the attention of the public. She was produced before the Magistrate at Tonk for recording her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. She has stated that she told the Magistrate that she has been enticed away by Madho against her will. But this fact has not been mentioned in her statement This is most unbelievable statement. If she has stated this fact to the learned Magistrate who recorded her statement I see no reason that the Magistrate would permit Madho to take away Mst. Phula from his Court after recording the statement. When the Magistrate was informed that she has been abducted by Madho he will not permit accused Madho to go from that place. If she has stated this fact to the learned Magistrate who recorded her statement I see no reason that the Magistrate would permit Madho to take away Mst. Phula from his Court after recording the statement. When the Magistrate was informed that she has been abducted by Madho he will not permit accused Madho to go from that place. Madho wouid have been arrested and Mst. Phula would have been recovered by the Police when she was before the Magistrate. So all these things indicate that this is a false story. The position is very clear that Mst. Phula had gone with Madho with her consent. The delay in lodging the report also creates doubt in the correctness of the prosecution story as put up by them. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in view of the statement of doctor Mukherjee (PW 11) who got her X-ray regarding age and according to the opinion of the doctor the age was above 16 years and below 18 years. So if a girl is below 18 years and has been kidnapped then her consent has no value. Suppose that Mst. Phula had gone with Madho Lal at her own will then two offence is proved of kidnapping because she is being below 18 years of age. In reply to this argument it was stated that the doctor in the cross-examination has stated that due to cliamatic, nutrituinal and other conditions the difference in bones could occur and according to doctor it was correct to say that age can vary by one or two years. So looking to the statement of doctor Mukarjee who has opined that age of Mst. Phula was above 16 years and below 18 years but according to his cross-examination this age can very from 1 year to 2 years. So it is possible that Mst. Phula may be above 17 years or may be below 19 years of age. If she is below 19 years of age then she is certainly above 18 years of age and then the question of her consent is very material question. If she is above 18 years and she had gone with Madho by her consent then no offence has been committed by accused Madho and if she is below 18 years then certainly her consent has no value. If she is above 18 years and she had gone with Madho by her consent then no offence has been committed by accused Madho and if she is below 18 years then certainly her consent has no value. The doctor says that there may be variation in the age by one or two years. So the age of Mst. Phula may be 20 years or below 20 years or that she may be below 16 years of age. So this doubt about the correctness of the age of Mst. Phula gives some benefit to the accused-persons. Where there is doubt then according to criminal jurisprudence the benefit of doubt is always given to the # accused-persons. The prosecution is never given benefit of doubt. It cannot be said definitely that she was in all respect below 18 years of age. So doubt is created and benefit of doubt is given to the accused-persons. 7. There is a question of identification of articles i.e. some gold and silver ornaments. The ornaments were recovered at the instance of accused Madho. Identification Parade was conducted by Sarpanch who has no authority to conduct the Identification Parade. So evidence with regard to the identification has no value and on this ground the accused-persons cannot be convicted. 8. In view of my above discussion. I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has erred in finding guilty the accused-persons and the conviction and sentence is bad. 9. As a result the appeal is accepted. The accused-persons are not found guilty of the offence for which they have been convicted by the lower Court and all the appellants are acquitted. All the appellants are on bail. Their bail-bonds are cancelled and they need not surrender.Appeal accepted. *******