JUDGMENT The sole appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.9.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions 1udge, Badwaha, West Nimar, in Sessions Trial No. 6/94, has preferred this appeal from the jail. The learned A.S.J. has convicted the appellant for an offence under Sec. 109 read with Sec. 366 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 17.11.1993 Shilu (PW 1) has gone to that residence of one Babulal Jat for viewing T.V. While she was coming back, it is alleged she stayed with the daughter-in-law of the appellant, at his residence. It is stated that one Aman Singh, was also sitting there. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the appellant had given Sanjori (a food item) to the aforesaid Shilu and slated that her marriage has been fixed at village Padliya. The appellant is further alleged to have stated that her illicit relation with Aman Singh had come to the knowledge of the people of village Padilya. The appellant further told to aforesaid Shilu that if she goes there then they would assault her. The appellant stated to the aforesaid Shilu that she should run away with Amansingh. According to the prosecution the girl at the instigation of the appellant went alongwith the aforesaid Aman Singh to live as husband and wife. However, when she reached a place near village Balwada, she changed her mind and came back to her village. The aforesaid information led to the institution of a police case. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and the aforesaid Aman Singh. It is stated that the said Aman Singh was facing trial in the Children Court but subsequently he had died. Be that as it may, in the present appeal I have to decide as to whether the appellant can be convicted for an offence under Sec. 366 IPC with the a id of Section 109 IPC. No evidence has been led on behalf of the prosecution to substantiate the charge under Sec. 109 IPC excepting the evidence of the girl Shilu (PW J) herself. No evidence has been led on behalf of the prosecution to substantiate the charge under Sec. 109 IPC excepting the evidence of the girl Shilu (PW J) herself. PW 1 Shilu, has stated in her evidence that she was asked to take Sanjori (which was made with some medicine) and the appellant forced her to leave the village alongwith Aman Singh saying that she would not be allowed to live in the village. According to her evidence, the appellant is alleged to have stated that if she returns, she will be killed. Her further evidence is that as the appellant has stated her in the aforesaid manner, she t1ed away with Aman Singh but when she reached near village Balwada, she changed her mind and came back to her village. The aforesaid evidence given by PW 1, Shilu, docs not inspire confidence. She has not stated the alleged role played by the appellant in her statement during the course of the investigation. It is stated that she fled away with Aman Singh because of the appellant has threatened her but in her own admission she accepted that she changed her view when she reached village Balwada, clearly' shows that the role attributed to the appellant is not probable. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid infirmity, leads me, in doubt about the implication of the appellant in the crime and I give him benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in S.T. No. 6/94 is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is in jail, in connection with the present case, be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.