JUDGMENT K.K. Birla, J. - This is an appeal preferred by Shri Rajendra Prasad against his conviction for the offences under Sections 147 IPC, 366 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and for sentence of one year's R.I. and four years R.I. respectively for these offences by the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 1979 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Pilibhit. 2. In brief, the prosecution case was that on 28.6.76 at about 8.00 A.M. Baij Nath, his sons Shanti Swaroop and Ram Kumar and his son-in-law Rajendra Prasad (the present appellant) armed with guns, 'Kanta' and 'Banka' entered the house of Ramesh Chandra and kidnapped Km. Anita aged about 13 or 14 years daughter of Ramesh Chandra forcibly. Baij Nath assaulted Smt. Shusila (wife of Ramesh Chandra) and Rajendra Prasad assaulted Ramesh Chandra. On the door Jagdish, Ram Chandra, Laxmi, Ram Murti, Krishna Kumar and Bihari were standing for their help. On the raising of the hue and cry another Ramesh Chandra, Chhangey Lal, Chhadmi and others came but were threatened by the accused. The accused forcibly took away Km. Amita. The report was lodged at 4.30 P.M. by Smt. Shusila. The prosecution case further was that in the evening Sri Chhangey Lai (P.W. 2) Gurmit Singh (P.W. 3) and other persons went to the nearby forest on receiving the information that the accused were in the jungle. There they freed Km. Amita from the clutches of the accused after exchange of fire and few abductors were arrested on the spot. The prosecution case further was that Km. Amita was raped by some of the accused but they had not been tried for these offences. 3. The appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 147, 366/149 and 366/454 IPC. 4. The prosecution examined Km. Amita (P.W. 1) Chhangey Lal (P.W. 2), Gurmit Singh (P.W. 3) and Smt. Sushila Devi (P.W. 6) as the eye witness of the occurrence. After considering the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the case proved for the offences mentioned above against Rajendra appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Sri Jagdish Singh was also tried in S.T. No. 71 of 1977 (both the Sessions cases were taken together), but was acquitted. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Sri Jagdish Singh was also tried in S.T. No. 71 of 1977 (both the Sessions cases were taken together), but was acquitted. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Sri Baij Nath and 6 others were tried for the same offence and were also convicted. Against this they preferred Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 1977. Their criminal appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against them were also set-aside by order dated 26th September, 1980 of this Court and they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 7. This fact has not been denied on behalf of the State. I find that the present appellant was also being tried on the basis of the same FIR and for the same occurrence. Baij Nath and Shanti are also alleged to have entered the house of Ramesh Chandra. Baij Nath however, given the role of assaulting Smt. Sushila Dcvi. Therefore, the role assigned to Rajendra is similar. Apart from this from the statements of P.Ws. also the role assigned to Rajendra is in no way different or serious than the role assigned to Baij Nath etc. Admittedly Baij Nath was also tried for the abduction of Km. Amita and had been acquitted. This fact appears to be improbable that the father, sons and son-in-law joined together to abduct a girl for the purpose of committing rape. The contention that he has been falsely roped-in the case on account of his being the son-in-law Baij Nath has force. Coupled with this fact that Sri Baij Nath and others have already been acquitted by this Court for the offences alleged to have been committed for the same occurrence clearly makes the prosecution case completely unreliable and the impugned conviction can not be sustained in law. 8. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are quashed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail-bonds are discharged.