J. K. MATHUR, J. Kesho Prasad was convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 363, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 In default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. This appeal is directed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence. A first information report was recorded purporting to be based upon the statement made by Km. Shobhawati on 21-2-1977 at P. S. Jabalpur, district Faizabad stating that she was resident of village Rampur Kalan in P. S. Tanda and was studying in Class VII. She gave her age 11 years. Accord ing to her Keshoram accused used to visit her house and in absence of her parents used to tempt her by saying that he would give her good food and clothes if she married him. About 14 to 15 days before the lodging of the report she was coming back from her school. Kesho Ram met her near a grove. He again said that he would give ornaments and clothes in case she went with him. He took her in village Kanoorpur Petia at the house of Ram Prasad for 7 or 8 days and then at the house of Jugal Kishore in that village for about six days. Whenever Kesho Ram left the house, Ram Ashrey and Jugal Kishore used to keep a watch on her. Kesho Ram then took her to the district of Azamgarh and got her signatures on some papers. On 21-2-1977 Kesho Ram and Jugal Kishore Singh were taking her to the bazar of Jabalpur for clothes etc. when they met Rim Asrey near the Shivala. These persons started talking to Ram Ashrey about selling her and then took her towards Jalalpur. She started weeping when she saw the policemen coming. Kesho Ram ran away. Km. Shobhawati was taken to the police station. She wrote out the report Ext. ka-4. She was medically examined. In the opinion of the doctor she was about 17 years of age. On 23-2-1977 she was given in the supurdagi of her father. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against Kesho Ram, Jugal Kishore Singh and Ram Asrey. 3. On behalf of prosecution P. W. 1 Ram Avadh father of Shobhawati, P. W. 5 A. N. Misra, P. W. 6 Km. On 23-2-1977 she was given in the supurdagi of her father. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against Kesho Ram, Jugal Kishore Singh and Ram Asrey. 3. On behalf of prosecution P. W. 1 Ram Avadh father of Shobhawati, P. W. 5 A. N. Misra, P. W. 6 Km. Shobhawati, P. W. 7 Abul Hassan and P. W. 8. Thakur Prasad were examined to prove the facts in addition to the formal witnesses. After considering the evidence the learned Sessions Judge found Kesho Ram to be guilty of the offence under Section 363,1. P. C. He was acquitted of the offence under Section 366, I. P. C. and the other two accused were also acquitted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The only ground raised on behalf of the appellant is that the evidence on record does not prove that accused Kesho Prasad had kidnapped Km. Shobhawati and also that she was a major and the circumstances showed that she had gone, if at all, of her own free-will. 5. In this case, it may be pointed out that no report was loged about Shobhawati having been taken away from her house by the accused Kesho Prasad before a F. I. R. was registered on the basis of the alleged writing given by Shobhawati herself on her recovery on 21-2-1977. 6. P. W. 1 Ram Avadh is the father of Shobhawati. He did say that Kesho Prasad had taken her but admitted that he was not present at the time of incident, but had gone to Lucknow. He did not lodge any report admittedly. Mo reason was given by him for this. 7. The other witnesses to connect the accused with the crime produced by the prosecution were P. W. 7 Abul Hasan and P. W. 8 Thakur Prasad who are said to be present at the time Shobhawati was recovered. 8. However, P. W. 7 Abul Hasan though did state that three persons were there with a girl who was weeping and also stated that those were the persons standing in the court yet admitted that no recovery of girl had been made in his presence nor was any accused arrested and that he had been stating all that at the instance of the Sub-Inspector. 9. P. W. 8 Thakur Prasad also denied being present at the time of recovery of Shobhawati. 10. 9. P. W. 8 Thakur Prasad also denied being present at the time of recovery of Shobhawati. 10. P. W. 5 A. N. Misra, S. H. O. Kotwali, Pilibhit stated about having seen Km. Shobhawati weeping and stated about having recovered her and arrested the accused Ram Asrey and Jugal Kishore Singh. He stated about Shobhawati making statement on the basis of first information report so recorded. 11. The trial court thus found both the aforesaid accused not to be guilty and acquitted them. 12. The main witness in this case is P. W. 6 Km. Shobhawati. She has stated that Kesho Prasad used to tempt her with goods, clothes and food and jewellery. According to her on the date of incident also he tempted her and also threatened her with a pistol. She left with him. They went to village Kanoorpur where they lived with Ram Prasad for 2 to 4 days. She was then taken to the house of Jugal Kishore, where again she lived for 2 to 4 days. She specifically stated that Kesho Prasad alone used to live with her. He took her to Azamgarh where the police caught her when Kesho Ram was taking her. According to her there was noone else present at that time. She denied having written the report or having signed it. She also stated that she had not lodged any such report and whatever was written in it was not correct. She also stated that Kesho Prasad alone was her enemy. She also denied of having been taken to P. S. Jalalpur with Sub-Inspector. 13. This witness herself was cross-examined by the prosecution. She also admitted that Kesho Prasad had been inimical towards them since her childhood and that he had canvassed against her farther in the elections. 14. The only witness which was produced by the prosecution to connect the accused Kesho Prasad with the crime was P. W. 6 Shobhawati. Her statement could have been relied upon only if it was reliable as in respect of the act of abduction, her statement is not corroborated by any other material. 15. She has herself denied the report on the basis of which the entire prosecution rests. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution how this report came into existence. 16. Her statement could have been relied upon only if it was reliable as in respect of the act of abduction, her statement is not corroborated by any other material. 15. She has herself denied the report on the basis of which the entire prosecution rests. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution how this report came into existence. 16. The other two accused who had been implicated by the report were specifically stated not to be involved by this witness herself. 17. The very reason for her recovery and arrest of the accused vanished when this witness stated that only Kesho Prasad was taking her when the police recovered her. But the original story given out by her was that Kesho Prasad and the other accused were talking about selling her when she started weeping, raising suspicion in the mind of the police officers who apprehended the accused and recovered her. Kesho Prasad being there alone excludes the possibility of there being any talk of her sale or her weeping at that time to attract the attention of the police. She had been going with Kesho Prasad, according to her, to various places on foot and in public conveyances without complaining. There could be no reason for her to have been recovered by the S. H. O. Misra as there was nothing to raise any suspicion of her having been kidnapped in view of what has been stated by her in the court. 18. In any case there being only one witness who had stated about the accused Kesho Prasad having committed the offence, this statement is not worth placing reliance upon inasmuch as she has contradicted all that she said in the first information report, going to the extent of denying the first information report and its truthfulness. She also exculpated the other accused and gave an entirely different version of the incident. In any view of the matter, her statement is not such as could have been relied upon to rest the entire case against Kesho Prasad. On this score alone Kesho Prasad was entitled to be acquitted. 19. It was also urged that according to doctor Meera Misra P. W. 4 Shobhawati was about 17 years of age. It was urged that the opinion of the doctor can always vary one or two years either way. For this proposition a number of cases were relied upon. On this score alone Kesho Prasad was entitled to be acquitted. 19. It was also urged that according to doctor Meera Misra P. W. 4 Shobhawati was about 17 years of age. It was urged that the opinion of the doctor can always vary one or two years either way. For this proposition a number of cases were relied upon. It was urged that Shobhawati could not prove the manner of the incident and considering the facts that she had been taken to a number of places publicly and in public conveyances and she having never complained, it could easily be assumed that she had consented to be taken. 20. P. W. 4 Dr. Meera Misra had stated the age of Shobhawati to be about 17 years at the time of incident. This opinion is based upon the fusion of joints. This process is dependent upon a number of factors, personal and regional. It needs no authority to be stated that this opinion can vary by a year or two either way. In these circumstances, it is not proved that Shobhawati was $ minor at the time of incident, 21. P. W. 6 Shobhawati has herself stated about having been taken to Kanoopur and from that place to Azamgarh in a bus. There is nothing to suggest that there was any reason for her not to complain about her forcefully or deceitful taking by anyone during all these journeys. Thus there can be a reasonable conclusion about the possibility of her having consented to accompany the accused even if he took her. 22. In case she was major, no offence under Section 363, I. P. C. could be made out. The appellant has already been acquitted of an offence under Section 366, I. P. C. which acquittal has not been challenged. 23. In view of this the appellant Kesho Prasad could not have been found guilty of having committed offence under Section 363, I. P. C. 24. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against Kesho Prasad are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the offence under Section 363, I. P. C. Appeal allowed. .