JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. On the basis of a report lodged by one Champa Lal on 28-12-1981 at police station Bhalta it was alleged that on hearing some noise in the house of one Sunder Bai who is widow and mother of five childrens and 40 years of age, he went there and saw that accused Rama and Bihari Rao Village - Semli, who are the sons of real brother of Sunder Bai, along with four of five persons were standing in the house armed with lathies and gandasies. 2. It has been further alleged that the accused Rama S/o Kishna gave two blows by lathi on the person of Sunder Bai and the accused persons forced Smt. Sunder Bai to accompany them in order to get her marriage with some person but she refused to accompany the accused persons at the scene of incident forcefully look her out side the house and they talk her on the road of Behdi. After receiving the said report, police registered a case against the accused persons for the offence under Section 458 and 366 IPC and after completing the investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused persons. 3. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for the offence under Section 458 and 366 IPC but they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 458 and 366 IPC and various sentences passed against them, hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in FIR as well as in the statements of eye witnesses two of the appellants, namely, Bihari S/o Kishna and Rama S/o Kishna, have been named and that the other accused-appellants were stranger to the eye witnesses and the prosecution failed to conduct identification parade. In these circumstances learned counsel submits that it cannot be said that offence of abduction has also been committed by the accused appellants except Bihari and Rama. In this case P.W., (Sunder Bai), PW. 2 (Champa) and PW. 4 (Prabhu Lal) were examined as eye witnesses and they are the starve witnesses of the prosecution. The statement of Sunder Bai (PW. 1) is supported by the statement of PW. 4 (Prabhulal) and PW. In this case P.W., (Sunder Bai), PW. 2 (Champa) and PW. 4 (Prabhu Lal) were examined as eye witnesses and they are the starve witnesses of the prosecution. The statement of Sunder Bai (PW. 1) is supported by the statement of PW. 4 (Prabhulal) and PW. 2 (Champa) and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Smt. Sunder Bai who is categorically deposed that the accused persons wanted to get her marriage to some other person and in order to achieve their object they took her by force, so from the evidence of Smt. Sunder Bai offence of abduction is amply proved. The statement of Sunder Bai is corroborated by the statement of PW. 2 and PW. 4. This is correct to say that PW. 1, PW. 2 and PW. 4 are the starve witnesses of the prosecution did not named the appellants except Rama and Bihari in their police statement as well as in the statement recorded by the trial Court. The only thing deposed against the other appellants is that the accused persons were also present at the time of incident. I am of the opinion that such deposition is not sufficient to held that the accused-appellants except Rama and Bihari also intended to abduct Smt. Sunder Bai. 6. After going through the statement of PW. 1, PW. 2 and PW. 4, I am also of the opinion that the offence of abduction and oust dragging is full proved against appellants Bihari and Rama but the same is not proved against the other appellants. 7. Consequently appeal of Bihari S/o Kishna and Rama S/o Kishna is dismissed but appeal of other appellants, namely, Verma S/o Badan, Poora @ Puri Lal S/o Mangilal, Gopal S/o Duli Chand, Bapulal S/o Mehtab and Shiv S/o Gopiji, is allowed and they are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. The offence is alleged to have taken place in the year 1980-81. The offence is alleged to have taken place in the year 1980-81. The learned trial court passed only two years sentence against all the appellants on both the courts i.e. under Section 366 and 458 IPC The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submits that accused-appellants Bihari and Rama are remained on bail throughout the period of trial and pendency of this appeal and at present they are leading a settled life, so after a lapse of about 10 years from the date of incident a lot of hardship shall be faced by these two persons in case they are sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence passed against them. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the sentence of accused appellants Bihari and Rama be reduced for the period already undergone by them. 8. Consequently, the appellants Bihari and Rama is dismissed and appeal of all the other appellants is allowed. On the point of sentence I am of the opinion that for the incident which is alleged to have been committed in the year 1981 ends of justice will be made in case the sentence of the appellants (Bihari and Rama) is reduced for the period already undergone by them. So, the appeal of appellant Bihari and Rama is partly allowed. Their conviction is maintained but they are sentenced for the period already undergone by them. *******