JUDGMENT 1. - Seven appellants vide Kaniya, Sua Karniya, Ridmaliya, Raniya Boopa and Smt. Seeta have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.8.1981 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by which he convicted the said accused appellants as under- (1) Kaniya S/o Roopa (1) Under Sec. 366/511 I.RC. 4 years's R.l. and a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months R.l. (2) Roopa S/o Akbar (2) Under Section 363 I.RC. 2 months' fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to further undergo one months R.l. (3) Under Section 323 I.RC. 2 months R.l. (4) Under Section 504 I.RC. a fine of Rs. 50/- each and in default of payment to undergo 5 days S.l. (5) Under Section 147 I.PC. 1 month's S.l. each. (6) Under Section 4(1 )(g) Rajasthan Prohibition Act 3 months S.l. and a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. (3) Sua S/o Akbar (4) Karniya S/o Akbar (5) Ridmaliya S/o Jagga) (6) Raniya S/o Akbar (1) Under Sec. 366/149 I.RC. 2 years R.l. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to further undergo one month's R.l. (2) Under Sec. 363/142 I.RC. one years' R.l. and a fine of Rs. 50/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 20 days R.l. (3) Under Section 323 I.PC. one month's S.l. each. (4) Under Section 147 I.RC. one month's S.l. each. (5) Under Sec. 4(1) (g) Rajasthan Prohibition Act 3 months S.l. and a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default to further undergo 15 days S.l. (7) Smt. Seeta (1) Under Sec. 366/149 I.RC. 2 years' R.l. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R.l. (2) Under Sec. 363/149 I.P.C. one year's R.l. and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 20 days R.l. (3) Under Section 323 I RC. one month's S.l. (4) Under Section 147 I.P.C. one month's S.l. (5) Under Section 504 I.RC. a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 5 days S.l. 2. It has been ordered that the sentences passed against all the accused appellants shall run concurrently. 3. one month's S.l. (4) Under Section 147 I.P.C. one month's S.l. (5) Under Section 504 I.RC. a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 5 days S.l. 2. It has been ordered that the sentences passed against all the accused appellants shall run concurrently. 3. Satyanarain lodged a report Ex.P/1 at police station, Jalore on 21.2.1981 alleging that at about 4.00 p.m. his wife his brother's wife and his sister went to answer the call of nature in open behind the Court compound at Jalore. After some time his wife came and told that a person wearing black banian came and asked the ladies not to ease themselves at the place. Ladies stood up and while returning they reached near the house of Kaniya. Accused appellant Kaniya, his wife Sita and four other persons armed with lathis came. They took away Kamla inside the house of Kaniya. On this information informant Satyanarain and his father went running and found that the appellants were standing alongwith Kamla and Muniya. On reprimanding they abused. Then Kamla and Muniya were brought back. 4. Police registered a case under Secs. 147, 354, 342, 323 and 504 I RC. During investigation offences under Secs. 366 and 363 were also added and after investigation all the appellants were challaned for various offences including the offence under Section 4(1 )(g) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act. Seeta was not charged under the Rajasthan Prohibition Act. After submission of challan, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, who charged the appellants under Secs. 147, 366 read with 149, 326 read with 149, 354, 504 I.PC. and Section 4(g) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act. They denied the charges and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. they did not produce evidence in defence. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. Hence this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants first of all submitted that the offence under Section 4(g) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act was not at all proved because though accused appellants Kaniya, Raniya, Sua, Ridmaliya, Karniya and Roopa were medically examined by RW. 10 Dr. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants first of all submitted that the offence under Section 4(g) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act was not at all proved because though accused appellants Kaniya, Raniya, Sua, Ridmaliya, Karniya and Roopa were medically examined by RW. 10 Dr. Kapur Chand Choudhary but they were not found intoxicated. I have read the statement of PW. 10 Dr. Kapur Chand Choudhary who stated that he took samples of urine and blood of these persons in order to arrive to the conclusion whether they were intoxicated or not. Counsel submitted that the reports of the chemical examination relating to blood and urine have not been produced and it is sufficient to disprove the case of the prosecution. The Rajasthan ProhibitionAct is a dead law not. It was prevalent on the date of occurrence. Section 4 of the said Act provide that whenever occurrence lighted shall be punished with imprisonment of which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. Now what is the evidence about consumption of alcohol by the appellants? There is no eye witness. The only evidence given in this case is of PW. 10 Dr. Kapur Chand Choudhary who took samples of the blood and urine but the report has not been received and as such it cannot be conclusively said that the appellants had consumed liquor. They were not in the state of intoxication as a result of having drunk liquor. When there is no definite evidence about consumption of liquor by them as the report of their blood and urine examined has not been produced, it cannot be concluded that they had consumed liquor. As such the conviction of the appellates under Section 4(g) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act cannot be sustained. 7. So far as other offences are concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence to prove that the appellants have taken away the minor or major ladies with intent that they may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that they will be compelled, to marry any person against their will or in order that they may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that they will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. He submitted that the police wanted to arrest the appellants, therefore, these offences were added afterwards for which there is no evidence on record and even then the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for these offences. He submitted that the witnesses do not identify the accused appellants, and no test identification parade was conducted during investigation and as such the identification of any accused in the Court during trial is of no help to the prosecution. He submitted that from the evidence it appears that it was desired that the ladies who used the open place for easing themselves which was near to the house of the accused appellant Kaniya should not be used as such and, therefore, they might have been objected to but the case has been given a different turn. He submitted that the appellants deserve acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor tried to support the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. 9. So far as identification is concerned, admittedly no test identification parade was conducted during the investigation, therefore, when the witnesses do not know the accused appellants, their identification in the Court is of no help to the prosecution. The first information report Ex.P/1 itself mentions that a person wearing black banian had come to object. It was Smt. Narmada who came to the complainant to inform about the incident and on the basis of her information first information was lodged. Then the F.I.R. Ex.P/1 further mentions that when the ladies were passing from the way infront of the house of Kaniya then four persons armed with lathis came whose names were not known to Smt. Narmada. Satyanarain mentions, in the F.I.R. that he went and found that Kaniya his wife Sita, his brother Rania, Suba, Ridmal, Karniya and Roopa were standing armed with lathis and were not allowing Kamla and Muniay to go. The story has been exaggerated by all the witnesses. 10. P.W. 4 Smt. Narmada stated that when the ladies were easing then a person wearing black banian came and asked as to why they were easing. She further stated that when three ladies were coming back, six male persons and a lady came out and surrounded them. She further stated that they caught hold of Kamla and Muniya. But she is not able to name then. She further stated that when three ladies were coming back, six male persons and a lady came out and surrounded them. She further stated that they caught hold of Kamla and Muniya. But she is not able to name then. She stated that they took Muniya and Smt. Kamla after they caught hold of them. Then she went at her house and informed her husband. She identified the appellants but as already stated no test identification parade was conducted during the investigation, therefore, identification made by her in the Court is of no help to the prosecution. Then it appears that she exaggerates when she says that Muniya and Kamla were taken inside the house. She admitted in the cross-examination that she did not know as to under which 'jhunpa' the two ladies were taken. She further admits in the cross-examination. That when she went running to her husband she did not see the faces of any of the accused appellants. It appears that the story of taking away has been cooked up afterward. 11. P.W. 2 Kumari Muniya stated in her examination in chief that Kaniya caught held of the hand of her sister in law and accused appellant Roopa caught hold of her by hand. She further states in the examination in chief itself that she was taken in a 'jhunpa' were she was told that she would be deflowered and Kamla was told by Kaniya that her modesty would be outraged. Then she and Kamla both made hue and cry. In the meantime Satyanarain and her father Agarchand came then the appellants ran away. But it appears that this story has been cooked up as it is not stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.RC. Then she, like Smt. Narmada did not know the accused appellants from before. No test identification parade was conducted. The same is the case with RW. 5 Smt. Kamla. She has added so many things to the story by her imagination. She stated in the examination in chief itself that Kaniya kicked at her belly when she was outside the 'jhunpa' and she fell down. Then he again kicked and in the meantime Satyanarain, who is the elder brother of her husband, came and then Roopa appellant inflicted injuries on the head of Satyanarain. She stated in the examination in chief itself that Kaniya kicked at her belly when she was outside the 'jhunpa' and she fell down. Then he again kicked and in the meantime Satyanarain, who is the elder brother of her husband, came and then Roopa appellant inflicted injuries on the head of Satyanarain. She further stated that Kaniya caught hold of her and told that he would outrage her modesty. She further stated that Roopa told the same thing to Muniya. But this story does not find place in the first information report and is not corroborated by other witnesses. So all the three ladies have exaggerated to the extent of making allegations that offence under Secs. 366 and 363 I.P.C. were committed. The occurrence took place on 21.2.1981 at about 4.00 PM. and after it was over the report was lodged at 4.35 PM. at police station Jalore. But the report does not mention anything about such events. The three ladies have tendency of adding things in order to exaggerate. They have not stated such incidents in their statements before the police neither did they know the appellant from before, therefore, they cannot be relied upon. They are untrustworthy. 12. It was RW. 7 Satyanarain who lodged the first information report. He was told about the incident by his wife and then he went at the place of occurrence. He stated that Kamla and Muniya told him in the way while returning that they were threatened and that they were taken away. If it was so then there is no explanation as to why it was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Ex.P/1. The report Ex.P/1 has been written by him. He states that when he went then Kamla and Muniya were coming out of a 'jhunpa'. This he saw from a distance of about five paces. Strangely, even then he did not mention it in the first information report. It is very much fatal to the prosecution. The report itself mentions that the appellants were standing armed with lathis and it were Muniya and Kamla who were detained by them. It is very clear that the witness has exaggerated. He does know the appellants but his statement cannot be relied upon as he has exaggerated the incident at different places. 13. P.W. 1 Agarchand is the father of Satyanarain. It is very clear that the witness has exaggerated. He does know the appellants but his statement cannot be relied upon as he has exaggerated the incident at different places. 13. P.W. 1 Agarchand is the father of Satyanarain. He states that the story was told by Smt. Narmada to him and to his son Satyanarain and then both, he and Satyanarain, went at the place of occurrence. He also states that Muniya and Kamla came out of 'jhunpa' after seeing him. But the F.I.R. mentions that the appellants were standing outside detaining these two ladies. He further stated that Roopa Moho and Muknaram had also come at the place of occurrence after he reached there. He did know all the appellants. He stated that when he and Satyanarain reached, the ladies were making hue and cry. He further admitted that there were houses of certain persons near the house of appellant Kaniya. But it appears that nobody had come to the place of occurrence. Had there been such an incident and the ladies made hue and cry then definitely somebody from the neighbouring houses would come. It was day time and such an incident could not have happened and there appears to be improbability of such a happening at that time in the area where houses of other persons were situated. This witness is unreliable because he changes versions at different place. He does say that apart from Roopa and Muknaram four of five other witness had also come whom he does not identify. However, he is unreliable so far as identification of appellants is concerned. He is not able to identify correctly all the accused persons. When he was asked to identify Karniya in the Court, he admitted that he did not know him. He identified Suba as Karniya. So it was necessary for the prosecution in this case to get the appellants identified not only from the three ladies but from this witness as well. 14. P.W. 3 Roopa is said to have come after Agarchand and Satyanarain reached at the place of occurrence. He stated that all the appellants were present, and the two ladies Kamla and Muniya were detained. But strangely he also exaggerates and says that when he reached he found that Kamla was lying on the ground. He appears to be a cooked up witness. He stated that all the appellants were present, and the two ladies Kamla and Muniya were detained. But strangely he also exaggerates and says that when he reached he found that Kamla was lying on the ground. He appears to be a cooked up witness. He has himself admitted that he has now left giving evidence in cases. However, he is also not in a position to identify the accused appellants in the Court. When he was asked to identify Suba, he touched Rania and said that he was Suba. Thus he does not identify and it was necessary for the prosecution to get the accused appellants identified during investigation. From the evidence of all these witnesses. I find that the witnesses are unreliable, they have exaggerated and it appears that either the witnesses were not present or no such occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution took place. It appears that the ladies might have gone to case themselves and might have been objected to fall in order to implicate. The appellants in such a case the story was cooked up. It was alleged that Smt. Kamla was beaten but her injury report Ex.P/2 does not show any visible injury. Of course Satyanarain had a lacerated would as proved by P.W. 10 Dr. Kapur Chand Choudhary but the injury is such which can be caused to any person and his proved beyond doubt that it was caused during this incident. 15. Other witnesses Prabhuram RW. 2, Bheem Singh RW. 8 Bhanwar Singh RW. 11 are the police officials who were connected with the investigation at one stage of the other. Learned Public Prosecutor is not able to explain as to why the test identification parade was not conducted. P.W. 8 Bheem Singh Investigating Officer, was put this definition question. He simple stated that the test identification parade was to conducted. There are inherent weaknesses in the prosecution story, and the appellants deserves acquittalConsequently, the appeal is allowed. Appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them they are on bail. Their shall bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******