Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. The moot question for consideration in this appeal is whether on the facts found by the trial Court, the appellant Lal Babu Rai could be convicted of the charge under Sections 363/511 of the Indian Penal Code as it was not established that the informant was attempted to be abducted for being murdered. The informant Shyam Kumar who was aged about 14 years was standing at the ticket counter of Dumra Bus Stand on 29.4.1988 at 7.30 a.m. He had to go to village Asia by bus. Asia was his nanihal. The appellant is the co-villager of Shyam Kumar. He caught the left arm of Shyam Kumar from behind and forcibly started taking him away. In the meantime, on hearing sound of Shyam Kumar, Sheo Sharan Rai who were also at the bus stand reached there and Shyam Kumar caught his hand. Shiv Sharan Rai enquired from the accused as to where he was taking the boy upon which appellant is said to have replied that he would take revenge from this boy (Khoon Ka Badla Khoon Se Lengc) Shyam Kumar again raised alarm and 45-50 persons along with Hawaldar and constable assembled there. 2. The motive for the alleged occurrence is said to be previous enmity between the parties. One Rabindra Rai was murdered in which father and uncle of the informant were made accused. The Hawaldar took Shyam Kumar, Shiv Sharan and the appellant to the police station where the statement of Shyam Kumar was recorded and on his statement FIR was lodged. 3. The learned trial Judge found following the facts. (i) The accused put his hand at the arm of the first informant. (ii) The accused tried to take the first informant away from the bus stand and (iii) The first informant caught the hands of PW 1. 4. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 363/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year imprisonment. 5. Section 363 of the Penal Code prescribes the punishment for kidnapping of any person from India or from lawful guardianship. Obviously boy was not kidnaped from lawful guardianship. Section 362, of the Penal Code provides that "whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induced, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that persons". 5. Section 363 of the Penal Code prescribes the punishment for kidnapping of any person from India or from lawful guardianship. Obviously boy was not kidnaped from lawful guardianship. Section 362, of the Penal Code provides that "whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induced, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that persons". Abduction simpliciter is not one unless it is done with any object stated in Sections 363, 365 and 366 etc. Abduction simpliciter is no offence. 6. In Allu and another V/s. Emperor, AIR 1925 Lahore 512 :1925 (26) Cr LJ 943 (Lah) the evidence against the accused was that on the night of the occurrence, Mt. Salih was sleeping with her husband on a cot on the roof of their house. the two accused of the case armed with Chavi came to the roof and waking her up asked her to accompany them but she refused. They then lifted her up in order to carry her away upon which she raised an alarm and so they dropped her on the roof and made good their escape. 7. The question for consideration in that case was as to whether the abduction was completed or whether only an attempt to abduct had been made. Scott. Smith, J. held Mt. Salih was not compelled not to go from that place but was merely lifted up from her bed and dropped on the roof. The attempt of the accused to remove her from the roof of her house failed. The offence of abduction was not completed in this case. The Court found that earlier he attempted for abduction of Mt. Salih before her marriage with her present husband and abducted her and kept her in his house for 7 or 8 days. This circumstance indicated that his intention was to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse within the meaning of Section 363. The appellant accused was convicted under Sections 363/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In the present case, appellant has been convicted on the charge under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the Code, kidnapping from lawful guardianship is a substantive offence, but abduction is an auxiliary act, not punishable by itself, but made punishable only when it is done with one or other of the intents specified in Sections 364, 365 and 366 of the IPC. 9. Under the Code, kidnapping from lawful guardianship is a substantive offence, but abduction is an auxiliary act, not punishable by itself, but made punishable only when it is done with one or other of the intents specified in Sections 364, 365 and 366 of the IPC. 9. The trial Court have acquitted the appellant under Section 364. The conviction under Sections 363/511 is not sustainable. The appellant is liable only under Section 352 of the Penal Code for using force as defined in Section 349 of the IPC. 10. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363/511 is set aside. He is convicted under Section 352, IPC. The appellant has remained in custody for some time and this appeal was preferred from jail. His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Let copy of the judgmentbe given to Mrs. Gunjit Gupta (A.C.)