Honble SHETNA, J.–The appellants-accused are real brothers. They were tried before the trial court for offences under Sections 366, 342 and 323, I.P.C. alongwith one more accused Mangilal for abducting the prosecutrix Lehari and for wrongful confinement by keeping her in the house for nearly 18 days against her will by the accused. The complaint was directly filed in the Court by one Nagjiram, brother-in-law of cousin sister of Lehari. (2). Lehari was aged 22 years at the time of the commission of the offence. She was married but her husband had driven her out. Her parents even refused to keep her. Therefore, she was living with Nagjiram - the complainant. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of the prosecutrix found the present appellants-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342, I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer 2 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and 3 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 342, I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This order is challenged in this appeal by the appellants-accused. (3). Learned counsel Shri Niranjan Gaur for the appellants-accused has taken me through the entire evidence of the prosecutrix and Nagjiram. He submitted that it was a case of ``nata for which the accused paid Rs. 14,000/-. In support of the defence, they have also examined the defence witnesses who have fully supported their defence. He submitted that the prosecutrix was not abducted by them but she had come on ``nata and stayed voluntarily for couple of days alongwith the accused No. 3 as his wife. However, because of her nature and character, she left on her own and went to Nagjiram again and then only got the complaint filed directly before the Court. He pointed out that when the complaint was registered before the Magistrate the matter was sent for investigation under Section 163, Cr.P.C. for investigation. On completing the investigation, the Police was satisfied that it was a case of ``nata and that she was not abducted nor wrongfully confined against her will by them. Therefore, final-report was submitted in favour of the accused. However, the learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant Nagjiram and prosecutrix issued the process against the accused for the aforesaid offences and then committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, final-report was submitted in favour of the accused. However, the learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant Nagjiram and prosecutrix issued the process against the accused for the aforesaid offences and then committed the case to the Court of Sessions. He, therefore, submitted that it is a clear case of consent. There was no abduction, she was a major lady at the time of the alleged offence and false case is filed by Nagjiram so that they have not to pay the amount of Rs. 14,000/- which they have taken from them on ``nata of Lehari with accused No. 3. (4). As against the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Jakhar submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix and Nagjiram is sufficient to convict the accused for the offences under Sections 366 and 342, I.P.C. and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. He submitted that this Court should not interfere with the order of conviction in the appeal and dismiss the same. (5). On going through the evidence of the prosecutrix and her character and past behaviour, it is clear that she went with the accused, if not on ``nata, but then, certainly for staying with them and stayed there for a couple of days. Therefore, no offence under Section 366, I.P.C. was committed by the accused. Her evidence that she was forcibly confined in the house is not believable in view of the fact that she had done nothing when she was staying in the village. She could have raised shouts in the village. She could have complained to any villager when going to attend the call of nature. Her version is that she left the house when the accused was sleeping is wholly unbelievable. The complaint came to be filed by Nagjiram only after Lehari met him and, till then, no complaint was lodged, and that too, before the Court and not before the police. This shows the master-mind of Nagjiram behind this. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the prosecutrix Lehari was forcibly and wrongfully confined by the accused for nearly 20 days in their house. (6). In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge convicting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342, IPC is set aside. The accused are on bail. (6). In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge convicting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342, IPC is set aside. The accused are on bail. The bail-bonds stand discharged. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to them.