J. G. CHITRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has filed this appeal for impugning the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Sessions judge Mandsaur in S. T. No. 10 of 1988 by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence under S. 366, IPC and has been sentenced for R. I. for four years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 7-1-88 the appellant gave a message to Sadhana daughter of P. W. 2 Nandkishore that her father Nandkishore had called her to Pashupati Nath temple at Mandsaur. Believing that message, Sadhana left her parents' house. Thereafter, the appellant and Sadhana went to Mandsaur and at Mandsaur, after taking DARSHAN of Lord Pashupatinath, the appellant told her that she should marry with him otherwise, he would put her to defamation which would make it difficult for her to marry. Thereafter, the appellant took her to a Notary, stationed at District Court premises and got an affidavit sworn declaring that she was marrying the appellant. The prosecution further alleged that the appellant and Sadhana stayed at Jain Vishram Graha on 8-1-88 from where they were taken in custody by the police on a complaint made by Nand Kishore, father of Sadhana. ( 3 ) AFTER necessary investigation, the appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under S. 366, IPC before the Sessions Judge Mandsaur, who after recording and appreciating the evidence, concluded that the charge levelled against the appellant stands proved and, thereafter, the trial Court passed an order of conviction and sentence, which is being challenged in this appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Shri R. S. Garg referred to the evidence on record and by criticising the judgment of the trial Court claimed that the appellant deserves to be acquitted. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate Shri G. Desai justified the impugned order of conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) THE trial Court believed the evidence of P. W. 1 Sadhana and relied on the evidence brought by the prosecution that Sadhana was treating the appellant as brother and for that she had tied 'raki' on Raksha Bandhan day. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate Shri G. Desai justified the impugned order of conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) THE trial Court believed the evidence of P. W. 1 Sadhana and relied on the evidence brought by the prosecution that Sadhana was treating the appellant as brother and for that she had tied 'raki' on Raksha Bandhan day. The photograph which was produced in this matter was perused by the trial Court at the time of adjudicating the matter before him and the trial Court observed that the said photograph was showing that Rakhi was tied on the hand of the appellant. Making reference to this part of the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court concluded that the appellant took disadvantage of intimacy with the family of Sadhana and her parents lured Sadhana away and by threatening made her to swear the said affidavit. In view of such reasoning, the trial Court concluded that the charge levelled against the appellant approved. ( 6 ) IT is to be noted that in past the appellant used to visit the house of Sadhana's parents. Sadhana used to treat him as her brother for which she had tied Rakhi on appellant's hand on Raksha Bandhan days in the past. ( 7 ) IT is the prosecution case that on 7-1-88 the appellant gave a message to Sadhana that she was called by her father at Pashupatinath temple, Mandsaur and believing him, Sadhana left house of her parents and thereafter at Mandsaur executed an affidavit. The first information report which is Ex. P/1 dated 7-1-88 mentions that father of Sadhana made a complaint to the police that on 7-1-99 in absence of Nandkishore, the appellant took away his daughter Sadhana aged 23 years. It has not been mentioned in Ex. P/1 that the appellant had given a false message to Sadhana that she was called by her father to Pashupatinath temple at Mandsaur. Ex. P/1 shows that Nandkishore made such a complaint to the police after he received information from his family members on telephone. It has been mentioned further in the said report that after receiving the said telephonic message he went to Jawad and after getting information about the said act, he went to the police station for lodging that report. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, it is quite clear from Ex. It has been mentioned further in the said report that after receiving the said telephonic message he went to Jawad and after getting information about the said act, he went to the police station for lodging that report. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, it is quite clear from Ex. P/1 that P. W. 2 Nandkishore had lodged that report after getting full information from his family members. Had there been truth in the prosecution cases for as the allegations against the appellant are concerned in context with giving false message, Ex. P/1 would have mentioned that ( 9 ) LEARNED defence counsel submitted that Sadhana is an aged girl. She was serving as a teacher and hence she was quite grown up girl and when such message was given as alleged by the prosecution, she would not have believed it, because she was knowing that her father was stationed at Manasa at that time. When Sadhana was knowing that her father was working at Manasa she would have asked various questions to the appellant and in that event, appellant would have been exposed. I find substance in this submission on this point. It is to be noted that when such a message was given by the appellant as per prosecution case, P. W. 1 Sadhana was in the company of her mother and her grown up sister. Sadhana, her sister and her mother would have definitely questioned the appellant as to why Nandkishore would call Sadhana alone to Pashupatinath temple when be was serving and stationed at Manasa. The prosecution evidence is not explaining this aspect. ( 10 ) FURTHER, when evidence of Sadhana shows that when the appellant and Sadhana went to Mandsaur at Pashupatinath temple and had DARSHAN, Sadhana would have asked the appellant as to where was her father. At that time also the alleged false information on behalf of the appellant would have been exposed and Sadhana would have resisted the appellant at least at the time of going to District Court premises for swearing and affidavit before the notary. The said affidavit is on record as Ex. P/6. It shows that Sadhana signed over it after making solemn affirmation that she understood the contents of the said affidavit and declared that the contents of the said affidavit were true. After doing it, she signed before the notary. The said affidavit is on record as Ex. P/6. It shows that Sadhana signed over it after making solemn affirmation that she understood the contents of the said affidavit and declared that the contents of the said affidavit were true. After doing it, she signed before the notary. At the time of signing before the notary over the said affidavit, Sadhana would have questioned the appellant as to why her father was not present and the appellant was making her to swear such an affidavit. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that Sadhana was not an uneducated girl or village girl. She was quite grown up girl who had served as a teacher. She was well acquainted with the consequences of making signatures on such sort of affidavit. This aspect cannot be ignored. ( 11 ) SADHANA gave excuses and alleged that the appellant threatened her that on failure of Sadhana marrying with him, he would defame her and make it difficult for her to marry and, therefore, because of such threat Sadhana was left with no alternative but to execute that affidavit. There is no substance in these excuses, because, when Sadhana was before the notary, she could have told notary that she was subjected to such threat and she would have sought protection through notary. Besides that, Sadhana, would have approached any Govt. Officers working in the premises of the District Court for the purpose of seeking protection. She could have contacted some Advocate in the premises for the purpose of protection or guidance. Apart from that, she would have contacted the persons as from police department, who must have been present there for the purpose of taking protection from the alleged threat given by the accused, but Sadhana did not do anything as prosecution evidence discloses. ( 12 ) THE prosecution evidence further shows that Sadhana and the accused-appellant had stayed at Jain Vishram Graha at Seetamau on 8-1-88 and the police took Sadhana from that Vishram Graha on 8-1-88 itself. Police had visited Chat place in pursuance of the complaint made by Nandkishore, father of Sadhana. When Sadhana was staying in that Vishram Graha, she could have made a complaint to the owner of it that she was subjected to such a threat and she was staying with the appellant against her will, but that has not been also done by Sadhana. When Sadhana was staying in that Vishram Graha, she could have made a complaint to the owner of it that she was subjected to such a threat and she was staying with the appellant against her will, but that has not been also done by Sadhana. ( 13 ) THIS makes one to infer that parents and family members of Sadhana must have been knowing that they would go to Seetamou or they would move near that place. This indicates that it seems to be an attempt on the part of Sadhana to marry with the appellant against the will of her parents but on her own accord. ( 14 ) IT is the experience that when such a young girl from the house of parents and stay with the person whom she desires to marry and when they are caught by the police on complaint of parents, she tried to put blame on the boy and plead innocence by making out a false story. This seems to be some sort of love affair in which Sadhana might have decided to put blame on the appellant after seeing the police present in the said guest house there at the instance of her father, for saving her skin as well as her reputation. Perhaps, she might have been afraid of her parents also and, therefore, for the purpose of escaping displeasure of her parents, Sadhana might have decided to put blame on the appellant. Otherwise, there is no believable explanation of such unnatural behaviour of Sadhana who happened to be a grown up girl and a teacher. ( 15 ) THE learned trial Court has thus not appreciated the evidence on record properly and thus, he was in error in convicting the appellant under S. 366, IPC and thereafter sentencing him as mentioned above. ( 16 ) THE evidence on record does not substantiate the conclusion drawn by the trial Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court against the appellant are not borne out by the evidence on record. ( 17 ) THUS, assessing the evidence as a whole, this court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is not correct, proper and, therefore, illegal. ( 18 ) THUS, this appeal is allowed. ( 17 ) THUS, assessing the evidence as a whole, this court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is not correct, proper and, therefore, illegal. ( 18 ) THUS, this appeal is allowed. Order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant in S. T. 101/88 is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge u/s 366 IPC. The bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed. .