Judgment A.S. Godara, J.-This appeal has been filed by the convict-appellants against the Judgment dated 3-1 1-80 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 14/80 whereby the appellants Madho Singh and Lakh Singh have been convicted Under Section. 366, IPC and Madho Singh had been sentenced to 21/2 years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-and, in default of payment of fine, six months’ R.I. while Lakh Singh has been released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his execution of personal bond as well as a surety bond in the sums of Rs. 5000/-each for keeping peace and to be of good conduct. 2. Appellants Jethu Singh, Sadul Singh and Heer Singh have been convicted Under Section. 368. IPC and Jethu Singh and Heer Singh have been sentenced to two years’ R.I. besides a fine of Rs. 1000/-and, in default of payment of fine, each has been ordered to further undergo six months’ R.I. 3. Appellant Sadul Singh has also been released on probation of good conduct on the same terms and conditions as imposed on appellant Lakh Singh. .4. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that PW. 2 Kum. Nain Kanwar is daughter of Loon Singh who was living with her maternal grandmother PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kunwar at latter’s residence situated in the village Jajiwal Kalan. The incident giving rise to the present appeal is alleged to have taken place at about 2-30 AM on the night intervening 20-2-1979 and 2 1-2-79 at the residence of Smt. Bal Kanwar. Smt. Bal Kanwar lodged Exhibit-P-3 report on 21-2-1979 at 1-00 PM at the Police Station. Dangiyawas (Dist. Jodhpur), alleging that at the time of the occurrence. Smt. Bal Kanwar, along with Kum. Nain Kanwar and latter’s brother Bishan Singh (PW. 6) were sleeping in a room of their house. The door of the house was chained from inside. Smt. Bal Kanwar heard noise of the movement of somebody and she thought that her maternal grandson Achal Singh who is of deranged mind, might have come. Since there was no response, a person standing outside lit a stick of match box on which she opened the door of her room in which they were sleeping and she saw that a man was standing in the verandah of her house. She could not identify him. Since there was no response, a person standing outside lit a stick of match box on which she opened the door of her room in which they were sleeping and she saw that a man was standing in the verandah of her house. She could not identify him. She enquired whether he was Achal Singh but there being no response, she caught his hand on which she was pushed away as a result of which she fell to the ground. He sat over her while two other persons entered her room whereat Kum. Nain Kanwar was sleeping and they also lit a stick of match box and in the light they caught hold of Kum. Nain Kanwar and she was lifted and kidnapped from there. Kum. Nain Kanwar attempted to cry but hand was placed over her mouth. Then all the three persons escaped with Kum. Nain Kanwar. Smt. Bal Kanwar along with PW. 6 Bishan Singh, went on the terrace of their house and they saw from there that a jeep was standing on the Jodhpur road and after a little while the same sped away towards Jodhpur. Smt. Bal Kanwar immediately informed Ba .Das. 5. It wasalleged in Exhibit-P-3 itself that they searched for foot prints of the accused persons but they could not trace any. It was alleged that Kum. Nain Kanwar was aged about 16 years. 6. On this report, PW. 13 Pratap Singh, Officer-in-charge. Police Station, Dangiyawas registered an FIR Under Sections. 452, 363 and 366/34, IPC and took up investigation. A rigorous search was started and lastly it transpired that Kum. Nain Kanwar was kidnapped by Madho Singh residing in the neighbouring house of Smt. Bal Kanwar with an intent to get married with Kum. Nain Kanwar. Lakh Singh, Mangi Lal, Gokal Ram and Durga Ram helped in kidnapping of Kum. Nain Kanwar, Kum. Nain Kanwar was taken from Jaiwal to Jajiwal of Brahniins Mandawa, Saton, Masuri and, lastly Peethala in Jaisalmer District. Madho Singh and Lakh Singh belong to village Saton. Sadul Singh, Jethu Singh and Heer Singh had helped the above accused persons in concealing and confining Kum. Nain Kanwar knowing that she has been kidnapped/abducted and, lastly, on 2-3-1979 vide Exhibit-P-17 PW. 13 Pratap Singh recovered Kum. Nain Kanwar from the custody of Madho Singh and Lakh Singh from the village Masuri. Sadul Singh, Jethu Singh and Heer Singh had helped the above accused persons in concealing and confining Kum. Nain Kanwar knowing that she has been kidnapped/abducted and, lastly, on 2-3-1979 vide Exhibit-P-17 PW. 13 Pratap Singh recovered Kum. Nain Kanwar from the custody of Madho Singh and Lakh Singh from the village Masuri. She was taken to village Peethala and, lastly, brought to Jaisalmer whereat Kum. Nain Kanwar was subjected to medical examination before PW. 8 Dr. Uma Gupta as well as PW. 12 Dr. Chandra Shekar. On her medical examination no signs of any sexual intercourse were visible. Her age was opined to be between 15 to 17 years. 7. On completion of investigation, a challan Under Sections. 363, 366, 368, 376 and 457, IPC was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Jodhpur. The same was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, who completed the trial. 8. Accused Madho Singh, Lakh Singh, Mangi Lal, Gokal Ram and Durga Ram were charged with the commission of offence punishable Under Section. 366, IPC while Heer Singh, Jethu Singh and Sadul singh were charged with the commission of offence punishable Under Section. 368, IPC to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and, therefore, the prosecution produced as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case besides documentary evidence in support thereof 9. Theaccused-persons were examined Under Section. 313, CrPC and they all denied the prosecution story. They examined D.W. 1 Koja Ram in their defence. 10. Lastly, vide his impugned Judgment , the learned trial Judge relied on the testimony of PW. 2 Kum. Nain Kanwar as well as her grand-mother PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar while acquitting Mangi Lal, Gokal Ram, Durga Ram of the charge Under Section. 366, IPC convicted the appellants, as above and hence this appeal. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned public Prosecutor, perused the case record along with the impugned Judgment and considered the same carefully. .12. Thelearned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge did not hold that Kum. Nain Kanwar was, at any rate, below the age of 18 years and even then, though Smt. Bal Kanwar as well as Kum. .12. Thelearned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge did not hold that Kum. Nain Kanwar was, at any rate, below the age of 18 years and even then, though Smt. Bal Kanwar as well as Kum. Nain Kanwar, had the genesis of the origin of the prosecution story been according to one disclosed in Exhibit-P-3 report alleged to have been lodged by Smt. Bal Kanwar, though she herself has stated that she never went to the police station of Dangiyawas, contrary to statement of PW. 13 Pratap Singh, is not a truthful witness and as a result, out of eight persons so challenged, three persons stood acquitted, as above and there was no independent witness in support of the tainted and unreliable evidence of PW. 5 Bal Kanwar and PW. 9 Kum. Nain Kanwar. There is no evidence to conclude that Kum. Nain Kanwar was minor being aged 18 years at the lime of the alleged incident and she has falsely denied that the appellant Madho Singh was residing in her neighbourhood and that she was also, even as per the admission of PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar, Madho Singh Was living in (he adjoining house for last many years while Kum. Nain Kanwar was residing at the residence of Smt. Bal Kanwar for not less than three to four years. There was an inordinate delay in lodging of Exhibit-P-3 report on which the alleged FIR under Section. 154, CrPC was registered. On the tace of denial of Smt. Bal Kanwar herself that she had gone to the Police Station to lodge the report and, as per her statement, she has narrated this story before Balu Das whereas Balu Das has not been produced in the evidence. Besides, since there is no documentary or conclusive proof of the age of Nain Kanwar, it was incumbent on the prosecution to have produced and examined her parents but it failed to do so. Kum. Nain Kanwar was admittedly married else where at the time of her examination in the Court which again shows that she must have been more than 18 years of age otherwise her marriage could not have legally materialized. Kum. Kum. Nain Kanwar was admittedly married else where at the time of her examination in the Court which again shows that she must have been more than 18 years of age otherwise her marriage could not have legally materialized. Kum. Nain Kanwar was taken from place to place by road, on a camel and on foot as well and she came in contact with many persons but she never made hue and cry nor did she ever try to slip out of the custody of the accused-persons and it all shows that she had acquired the age of maturity and exercising her own independent discretion and unless she was in love and elopement with Madho Singh, she could not have been accompanied or allegedly taken against her wishes and without her consent. There is no other reliable and independent evidence. Therefore, when the prosecution story has been partly disbelieved and the learned trial Judge was of the definite opinion that no conclusion can be arrived at that Kum. Nain Kanwar .was aged less than 18 years at the time of the incident, this finding itself is enough to have acquitted the appellants as well. 10.13. The learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the legality and validity of the impugned Judgment and contended that there is no reason to disbelieve either PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar or PW. 2 Kum. Nain Kanwar. 114. As regards commission of alleged offences, kidnapping is of two kinds: (i) kidnapping from India or (ii) kidnapping from lawful guardianship. 115. Section 361, IPC says that whoever takes or entices any minor Under Sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. 116. Similarly, as regards abduction, Section 362 says that whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. 117. 116. Similarly, as regards abduction, Section 362 says that whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. 117. As the prosecution alleges, it was a case of kidnapping as well as abduction, Section 366 provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid. 118. Similarly, Section 368 provides that whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully, conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement. 119. Therefore, the crucial point for consideration, at present, is about the age of PW. 9 Kum. Nain Kanwar. This point has to be discussed at length in the light of statements of PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar as well as PW. 9 Kum. Nain Kanwar besides PW. 12 Dr. Chandra Shekhar who had medically examined her for assessment and estimation about her age at the time of her alleged kidnapping/abduction. 120. Dr. Chandra Shekhar, on the basis of clinical and physical examination, opined that the age of Kum. Nain Kanwar was more than 17 years. Besides, on the basis of results of Radiologist, he further opined that her age could have been between 15 to 16 years at the lime of her examination. However, though, PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar stated that Kum. Nain Kanwar was more than 17 years. Besides, on the basis of results of Radiologist, he further opined that her age could have been between 15 to 16 years at the lime of her examination. However, though, PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar stated that Kum. Nain Kanwar was aged less than 14 years, against her own admission and statement in Exhibit-P-3 that the age of Kum. Nain Kanwar was about 16 years at the time of the alleged incident. Besides, PW. 9 Kum. Nain Kanwar stated her age, on 5-6-80, at the lime of her examination before the Court that she was aged 16 years and 3 months, meaning thereby that she was of about 15 years and 3 months at the time of the incident. She did admit that she had already been married with some other person before her examination. It further shows that she could have only been married in case she had already acquired age of maturity i.e. she was aged more than 18 years. In this respect, there is absolutely no documentary evidence in proof of the age of Kum. Nain Kanwar. Not only this, her parents could have been in the best possible state to have deposed about the age of Kum. Nain Kanwar, However, for the reasons best known, the prosecution failed to examine either of them. 121. In this view of the fact, when Smt. Bal Kanwar as well as Kum. Nain Kanwar have failed to state the actual year of birth of Kum. Nain Kanwar, it is not understandable as to from which year her age was counted. Besides, Smt. Bal Kanwar stated that her grand maternal son Achal Singh, who is real elder brother of Kum. Nain Kanwar, was aged about 20 to 22 years Kum. Nain Kanwar has not denied the suggestion of the defence that Achal Singh was aged about 20 to 22 years. Smt. Bal Kanwar further stated that Kum. Nain Kanwar was younger in age to her brother Achal Singh by 2 to 3 years. 19.22. Inthis view of the fact, since medical evidence cannot be taken to be exact and. having regard to the totality of the facts as are deposed to by PW. 12 Dr. Smt. Bal Kanwar further stated that Kum. Nain Kanwar was younger in age to her brother Achal Singh by 2 to 3 years. 19.22. Inthis view of the fact, since medical evidence cannot be taken to be exact and. having regard to the totality of the facts as are deposed to by PW. 12 Dr. Chandra Shekhar as well and also considered by the learned trial Judge, estimated age can be worked out and it is also a settled position that there is every possibility of increase or decrease by two years in the age so worked out. Presently also, this was the reason which weighed with the learned trial Judge to hold that it was not possible, on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution, which was contradictory and unreliable, that Kum. Nain Kanwar was, definitely below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. 20.23. That being so, when the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt that Kum. Nain Kanwar was minor at the time of the alleged incident, there does not arise any question of commission of any offence of her kidnapping, as described above. 224. As regards commission of offence of abduction with the intent and for the purposes as are enumerated in Section 366, IPC it is to be appreciated that Kum. Nain Kanwar has wilfully given a false statement that she was not residing with her grand-mother PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar for more than 3 to 4 years as is the statement of PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar and instead she stated that she lived only for 15 to 20 days prior to her alleged kidnapping. Besides, she has also denied that Madho Singh was living in the neighbourhood of Smt. Bal Kanwar. 225. PW. 13 Pratap Singh inspected the site after registration of the case and prepared Exhibit-P-15 site plan in which it is clearly mentioned that Madho Singh was living in the adjoining house of Smt. Bal Kanwar situated northwards of her house. Smt. Bal Kanwar also stated that Madho Singh was living in her neighbourhood. Smt. Bal Kanwar denied name of Madho Singh in Ex.P. 3 report as well. She did admit in her cross-examination that she could not identify any person who had so entered her house and taken away Kum. Nain Kanwar. 226. Smt. Bal Kanwar also stated that Madho Singh was living in her neighbourhood. Smt. Bal Kanwar denied name of Madho Singh in Ex.P. 3 report as well. She did admit in her cross-examination that she could not identify any person who had so entered her house and taken away Kum. Nain Kanwar. 226. It is also to be appreciated that Exhibit-P-3 report was lodged, as stated by PW. 13 Pratap Singh on 2 1-2-1979 at the Police Station of Dangiawas by Smt. Bal Kanwar whereas Smt. Bal Kanwar herself emphatically denied her having gone to the police station and lodging Exhibit-P-3 report there. She clearly stated that she went and reported the matter to Balu Das immediately. That being so, Balu Das was the most important witness but he has not been examined by the prosecution. Admittedly, there are houses of Khinv Singh, Abhai Singh, Pep Singh etc. in the neighbourhood of smt. Bal Kanwar and, naturally, had such a serious incident taken place in the mid of dead night it was most natural for Smt. Bal Kanwar to have made hue and cry but it was not so. Not only this, even if it is assumed that Exhibit-P-3 report, as it purports on the face of statement of PW. 13 Pratap Singh, the same having been lodged with the police at 1-00 PM on 21-2-79, there is still much unexplained delay. There is a distance of only 20 kms. between village Jajiwal Kalan and the Police Station, Dangiawas and had this occurrence taken place, as is the prosecution version, an immediate report, with the police could have been lodged. Besides, it is not clear as to what has been the fate of FIR registered Under Section. 154, CrPC on the basis of Exhibit-P-3 report since the same has not yet seen the light of the day. Had the same been produced before the Court, it could have been judged as to whether the same was despatched to the concerned Court forthwith or there was equally unexplained delay. 227. Thereis no reason to disbelieve Smt. Bal Kanwar that she did not go to the Police Station to lodge the report and that being so, consequently, reliability of PW. 13 Pratap Singh stating that Smt. Bal Kanwar lodged the report at the Police Station itself is lost. 228. As per the statement of PW. 13 Pratap Singh, PW. 227. Thereis no reason to disbelieve Smt. Bal Kanwar that she did not go to the Police Station to lodge the report and that being so, consequently, reliability of PW. 13 Pratap Singh stating that Smt. Bal Kanwar lodged the report at the Police Station itself is lost. 228. As per the statement of PW. 13 Pratap Singh, PW. 7 Gaje Singh as well as PW. 16 Brij Lal, H.C. and PW. 4 Basti Ram, they went in search of Kum. Nain Kanwar and the accused persons and lastly they reached the village Saton to which Madho Singh and Lakh Singh belong. On 3-3-79 they gathered an information that the accused persons had confined Kum. Nain Kanwar in the ‘Dhani’ of Peer Singh and so they headed towards the ‘Dhani’ but while they were at a distance of about 100 paces from the ‘Dhani’, accused Jethu Singh, Madho Singh, Heer Singh and Sadul Singh, who had climbed on hillock, both Jethu Singh and Sadul Singh, being armed, when given a hot pursuit, they were fired upon by the accused persons and this forced them to retreat. Brij Lal etc. returned to the Police Station, Jaisalmer and lodged a report there. LastlyPW. 13 Pratap Singh along with his associates, left in search of Kum. Nain Kanwar as well as the accused persons and reached village Masuriu in Jaisulmer. Both Madho Singh as well as Lakh Singh were found in the company of Kum. Nain Kanwar at a distance of about 1 to 2 kms. from village Masuria. They immediately arrested both the accused-persons and took into custody Kum. Nain Kanwar vide Exhibit-P-17. 229. It is also worthwhile to mention that PW. 8 Dr. Uma Gupta medically examined the person of Kum. Nain Kanwar vide fix. P.S report and she did not find any sign of abrasion of commission of sexual intercourse with her within preceding 24 hours of her examination. Not only this, although there is no basis for the same and there is also no mention in Exhibit-P-S. Dr. Gupta went to the extent of stating that the hymen of Kum. Nain Kanwar was found to be intact. On the contrary, Kum. Not only this, although there is no basis for the same and there is also no mention in Exhibit-P-S. Dr. Gupta went to the extent of stating that the hymen of Kum. Nain Kanwar was found to be intact. On the contrary, Kum. Nain Kanwar has stated that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by Madho Singh, who threatened her to marry with him and, for the purpose of ceremonizing her marriage with Madho Singh, a Brahmin was also called at the village Jajiwal Brahmin and at the village Saton as well. The above accused-persons tried to prevail upon her to be agreeable to get married with Madho Singh but she was not agreeable. Thus, her statement that she was subjected to sexual intercourse at all the places she was taken to, is not supported by the medical evidence. Besides, there was no charge of commission of rape on her and, therefore, her statement is highly exaggerated in this respect as well .30. In thisview of the matter when PW. 15 Bhanwar Singh, who had accompanied PW. 13 Pratap Singh for recovery of Kum. Nain Kanwar has clearly stated that Kum. Nain Kanwar was living with her grand-mother Smt. Bal Kanwar. Since her childhood and that the house in which Madho Singh was living, was also situated just adjacent to the same and that Madho Singh often visited the house of Smt. Bal Kanwar, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be brushed aside as false that since Madho Singh was living in the immediate neighbourhood of Smt. Bal Kanwar and that Kum. Nain Kanwar, like her both brothers .including PW. 6 Bishan Singh, since Smt. Bal Kanwar did not have any other child to live with her, were living with their grand-mother since their childhood and that Kum. Nain Kanwar had eloped with Madho Singh and as a result, she had voluntarily escaped from her own house without the knowledge and consent of her grand-mother (maternal) PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar. 27.31. The story of three persons having committed any house-breaking in the night, as alleged and having forcibly taken away Kum. Nain Kanwar is wholly unreliable and false. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar. 27.31. The story of three persons having committed any house-breaking in the night, as alleged and having forcibly taken away Kum. Nain Kanwar is wholly unreliable and false. Had it been so, as per her own statement in Exhibit-P-3 Smt. Bal Kanwar went up the stairs and say from the terrace from her house that a jeep with its lights on, had moved towards Jodhpur but she did not make hue and cry to attract the neighbours. Not only this, she made an inordinate delay in lodging Exhibit-P-3 which is also doubtful on the face of her admission, as above. 28.32. On the contrary, PW. 9 Kum. Nain Kanwar has clearly stated that she was taken in a tempo to the Jajiwal Brahniin which clearly contradicts the statement of her maternal grandmother. She further stated that Mangi Lal brought a car and she was up on the car and covered with a blanket and both Madho Singh and Lakh Singh sat over her. body so that she could not cry. This is most unnatural statement. She has, as above, alleged that she was being seduced to sexual intercourse at all the places of her alleged confinement against her will and without her consent forcibly but there was absolutely no sign of her having been forcibly seduced to sexual intercourse as is the statement of PW. 8 Dr. Uma Gupta, as above, had both the accused bundled her in a blanket, as is her statement and then their having sat over her, she ought to have received some abrasions etc. but it was not so. Her statement is nothing but an exaggerated and a bundle of falsehood. She stated that the car leaving Jajiwal and heading towards village Mandawa, stopped at a petrol pump and was also punctured in the way and as a result the same stopped there till the same was repaired. In the meantime, a number of vehicles passed from there. She did not make a hue and cry nor did she ever try to escape from clutches of the accused persons right from the alleged time of her taking away from her residence till she was recovered on 9-3-79 by PW. 13 Pratap Singh vide Exhibit-P-17. She was never harmed bodily. She did not complain to any person who came in her contact from village Jajiwal to Mandawa, Saton. Masuria and lastly, Peethla. 13 Pratap Singh vide Exhibit-P-17. She was never harmed bodily. She did not complain to any person who came in her contact from village Jajiwal to Mandawa, Saton. Masuria and lastly, Peethla. 29.33. That being so, this irresistible conclusion further leads to believe that Kum. Nain Kanwar like her two brothers was residing with her maternal grand-mother PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar since much prior to the alleged incident. Appellant Madho Singh, who was employed with 19 F.A.D. Jodhpur, was her immediate neighbour. They were very much known to each other and had an acquaintance since long. She could not have been taken away or so, as alleged, abducted in the maimer deposed to by her as well by PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar and thereafter, without her consent or against her will, subjected to repeated sexual intercourse unless Kum. Nain Kanwar was a willing and consenting parly. She had already acquired the age of majority as is also finding of the learned trial Judge and besides having a mature and age of discretion. She opted to leave the company and guardianship of her maternal grandmother PW. 5 Bak Kanwar and, any how, she slipped from her residence and thereafter, without any overt act, leading to the conclusion that she had ever, at any point of time of her kidnapping and abduction, been unwilling party and her’s not having objected against the conduct of appellant Madho Singh and submitting her, as of her own free and frank admission during her examination in the Court, for sexual intercourse to madho Singh, it shows that in case any sexual intercourse was committed on her, she was ever willing and consenting party and, therefore, no case of commission of offence of rape as defined Under Section. 375, IPC can be said to have been committed. 30.34. In thisview of the fact, it further shows that Kum. Nain Kanwar has tried to implicate as many as accused persons and besides attributing and alleging as serious offence as possible against the accused persons including Madho Singh. After she was apprehended in the company of Madho Singh and lakh Singhvide Exhibit-P-17 byPW. 13 Pratap Singh in an attempt to show that she was a woman of virtue specially when she stands married to some other person. 31.35. After she was apprehended in the company of Madho Singh and lakh Singhvide Exhibit-P-17 byPW. 13 Pratap Singh in an attempt to show that she was a woman of virtue specially when she stands married to some other person. 31.35. No other independent witness including Balu Das, having been examined by the prosecution, the prosecution story as disclosed in Exhibit-P-3 report, does not get any corroboration from any independent source. Besides, medical evidence is also of shaky nature and that too does not support the statement of PW. 9 Kum. Nain Kanwar. 32.36. Asstated above, the evidence of PW. 13 Pratap Singh also does not inspire full confidence. Besides, Exhibit-P-3 report itself being doubtful, as already concluded before, it can hardly be used to corroborate the false, inconsistent and self-contradictory statements of PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar and PW. 9 Nain Kanwar. They are not wholly reliable witnesses and are related and interested witnesses. Their partisan character and conduct on the face is highly exaggerated and substantially being false in material particulars as stated above, no reliance can be based on it to conclude that either appellant committed offence of either kidnapping or abduction, to attract punishment as prescribed Under Section. 366, IPC. .37. That being so, when offences of alleged kidnapping and abduction fall to the ground, no offence .punishable Under Section. 368, IPC could be brought home to either Sadul Singh, or Jethu Singh or Heer Singh. 33.38. Thelearned trial Judge disbelieved the statements of PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar as well as PW. 9 Kum. Nain Kanwar in respect of involvement of Mangi Lal, Gokal Rani and Durga Ram accused persons and consequently, proceeded to pass a verdict of acquittal in their favour and there is no justification to rely on the same evidence to uphold the conviction of rest of the accused-persons who are presently appellants before this Court to hold them guilty for the commission of offences charged with. 34.39. Thereis also no evidence, specially when circumstances discussed above, which indicate that Kum. Nain Kanwar eloped with Madho Singh and she had left the house of her grand-mother of her own volition in the company of Madho Singh and, therefore, there is further absence of evidence to hold that Lakh Singh still could commit any offence of kidnapping or abduction. Thereis also no evidence, specially when circumstances discussed above, which indicate that Kum. Nain Kanwar eloped with Madho Singh and she had left the house of her grand-mother of her own volition in the company of Madho Singh and, therefore, there is further absence of evidence to hold that Lakh Singh still could commit any offence of kidnapping or abduction. Besides, there is also no evidence to eonclude that Sadul Singh, Jethu Singh as well as Heer Singh appellants along with Madho Singh and Lakh Singh had kidnapped or abducted Kum. Nain Kanwar and with such a knowledge that they wrongfully concealed or confined Kum. Nain Kanwar anywhere. 35.40. In view of the fact and circumstances discussed above and the legal position stated above, the prosecution utterly failed to prove that the offence of kidnapping and/or abduction were committed by Madho Singh and Lakh Singh and knowing the same so having been committed, the rest of the accused persons confined and concealed Kum. Nain Kanwar wrongly, as above. 36.41. Thelearned trial Judge, though very hesitatingly, while holding Kum. Nain Kanwar to be aged not less than 18 years, at the same time, held the accused-appellants guilty, as above relying on the statements of PW. 5 Smt. Bal Kanwar and PW. 9 Kum. Nain Kanwar and, as stated above, their evidence is wholly unreliable and no conviction can be based on the same. That being so, the finding of guilty of accused-persons under the aforesaid offences being erroneous and leading to a perverse Judgment , deserves to be set aside. 37.42. In the result, this appeal deserves to be accepted. 38.43. On the basis of the discussion made above, this appeal is accepted. The impugned Judgment of con viction and sentencing of appellants as well as order of release of the appellants Lakh singh and Sadul Singh on probation of good conduct is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the sentences imposed on appellant Madho Singh under Section. 366, IPC and on appellants Jethu Singh and Heer Singh under Section. 368, IPC under appeal, as per the impugned Judgment , are also set aside. They are also discharged from the bonds/security bonds furnished pursuant to the Judgment and order of trial Court as well as this appellate Court