JUDGMENT 1. - In the course of his patrolling duties on 14.9.1981 PW 3 Ram Chandra, the then Station House Officer Police Station Saipau, received a secret information that at Haveli Ka Nagla under the jurisdiction of such police station a lady had been kept in wrongful confinement/detention by the certain persons. On such information Ramchandra. S.H.O. reached the house of Pati Ram-appellant where he found PW I Sint. Naresh Kuman, allegedly stated aged about 17 years. On being questioned by the S.H.O., PW I Smt. Naresh Kumari stated that she was an un-married girl and had been living with her parents at Delhi; that in the same locality one Smt. Sharifan along with his son Alisher also used to reside; that she used to-call Smt. Sharifan as Buwaji; that on Shari fan's persuasion she left the house of her parents for Ghaziabad (U.P.) in order to find job there; that Smt. Shari fan and her Son took her to Ghaziabad where she stayed with them for some time; that after a stay for some days Alisher, on the pretext that he would take her to Delhi to find a job for her there took her by train to Aligarh wherefrom she was taken to Agra by bus, that from Agra she was taken to Kheragarh where Alisher left her at the house of Ram Dayal and Dongar-appellants. Smt. Naresh Kumari further told Shri Ram Chandra SHO that Dongar kept her at the house of his sister in a village nearby and committed rape upon her there; that after some time Dongar took her to the house of Pati Ram-appellant in village Haveli Ka Nagla where Pati Ram committed rape upon tier; that at Haveli Ka Nagla she came to know that Ram Dayal, Dongar and Alishshar had sold her to Pati Ram for Rs. 4,000/-. On the basis of such information which he obtained from Smt. Naresh Kumari, PW 3 Ram Chandra SHO registered crime No. 127 of 1981 under section 363, 366, 368 & 376 IPC against the aforesaid persons. After investigation, the present appellants were charge-sheeted for having committed offences under sections 363, 366, 368 & 376 IPC. 2. 4,000/-. On the basis of such information which he obtained from Smt. Naresh Kumari, PW 3 Ram Chandra SHO registered crime No. 127 of 1981 under section 363, 366, 368 & 376 IPC against the aforesaid persons. After investigation, the present appellants were charge-sheeted for having committed offences under sections 363, 366, 368 & 376 IPC. 2. The learned trial Court framed charges under sections 368 & 376 1PC against Pati Ram-appellant, under section 363 & 3661PC against Ram Dayal and Dongar-appellants, and on their pleading not guilty to the aforesaid charges, he tried them accordingly. On the basis of the statement of PW 1 Smt. Naresh Kumari, PW 2 Vasudevo and PW 3 Ram Chandra and after rejecting the testimony of the sole evidence of DW 1 Than singh, the learned trial Court held Ram Dayal and Dongar Singh guilty of the offence under section 366 IPC and Pati Ram Ws. 368 IPC. Ram Dayal was acquitted of the offence under section 376 1PC and all the three appellants were acquitted of the offence under section 363 IPC. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dt. 28.5.1984 made in Sessions case No. 16/84 (51/83) State v. Pati Ram & Ors. , by way of the present appeal. 3. Mr. K.N. Shrimali, the learned counsel for the appellants took me through the entire evidence available on the record of the trial Court and submitted that there was no iota of reliable evidence on the record of the trial Court to hold the present appellants or any of them guilty of any of the charges for which they have been convicted of. Mr. Shrimal, learned counsel for the appellants, high lighted that whereas the prosecution case against the appellant, as given in the FIR was that Narsh Kumari was an un-married minor girl of about 17 years of age and had been induced to go with Alishar and his mother from the house of her father PW 2 Vasudeo, the case put-forth by the prosecution at the trial was that Smt. Naresh Kumari was a married woman and that on being fed-up with the cruel treatment meted-out by her at the hands of her husband, Ashok, she left his house of her own and had gone to Ghaziabad with Alishar and his mother Smt. Sharifan to find-out a job there. Mr. Mr. Shrimali further stressed that the basis of charge for offence u/s. 366 IPC was kidnapping of a minor girl or woman with intention to get her married with another person against her will and consent. But in the instant case, it is clear from the testimony of PW 1 Smt. Naresh Kumari herself that she, on being fed-up with the cruel treatment meted-out by her at her husband's hands, had left her husband's company of her own sweet will, possibly in order to find out the company of some other person elsewhere. Mr. Shrimali thus urged that if the prosecution case is read in the light of the above circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that no offence under section 366/368 IPC was committed against her in the present case by any of the appellants. 4. Mr. Pratap Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submitted that it is established on record that Smt. Naresh Kumari had been living with her husband and that it was due to the inducement by Alisher and her mother Sharifan that she had left Ghaziabad to find a job there. Mr. Singh further submitted that if such inducement could not have been given to Smt. Naresh Kumari by Alishar and his mother Smt. Sharifan, Smt. Naresh Kumari might have possibly not left the company of her husband. Mr. singh thus submitted that the offence under section 366 IPC was committed at the time when Smt. Naresh Kumari was taken away from the house of her husband on a false pretext of getting a job for her at Ghajiabad. Mr. Singh further submitted that once offence of kidnapping was complete, the offence under section 366 & 368 IPC would be considered to have been committed by the present appellants as offence of kidnapping was a continuing offence. Mr. singh further submitted that undisputedly Smt. Naresh Kumari had been recovered by PW 3 Ramchandra. SHO, from the house of Pati Ram at Haveli Ka Nagla, and till then she had been detained or confined in that house as a kidnapped lady, hence offence under section 368 IPC stood proved against the appellant also. 5. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence available on the record of the lower Court. 6. 5. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence available on the record of the lower Court. 6. In order to prove charges levelled against the present appellants, the prosecution had examined only three witnesses including the prosecutrix herself. Undoubtedly the quality of the evidence and not the quantity or number of witnesses is relevant to the decision of the case. But when the quality of the evidence tendered in this case by the prosecution is judged at the altar of normal human conduct and behaviour it is noted that the testimony of PW 1 Smt. Naresh Kumari inspires no confidence at all. Mr. Shrimali has rightly pointed-out that the prosecution had totally changed the theory as was advanced by the prosecution in the First Information Report wherein Smt. Naresh Kumari had claimed herself to a unmarried minor girl, living with her parents at Delhi. But at the trial she has stated' that she had been married with one Ashok about 4-5 years back; and that Ashok was a drunkard and used to beat her too after and that after having become fed-up of such cruel treatment by him, she had left his house of her own sweet will, for Ghaziabad in the company of Smt. Sharifan and her Son Alisher. When this aspect of the testimony of this main witness of the prosecution is kept in mind, it is not difficult to appreciate her subsequent conduct. Her subsequent conduct clearly indicates that from Gajiyabad she had gone to Aligarh by train. In the train she could have complained of her being taken by Aligarh with ulterior motive to a place other than Delhi on a false pretext. But she made no such complaint to any body. 7. Mr. Shrimali has rightly pointed-out that the medical evidence which was though not brought on the record through the statement of a Medical Officer yet clearly indicated that she was a major married woman. PW 2 Vasudeo, father of Smt. Naresh Kumari has categorically stated that Smt. Naresh Kumari was aged between 17 to 19 years. She herself has stated her age as 17 at the time of recording her statements. At that age she can reasonably be said to have attained the age of discretion. PW 2 Vasudeo, father of Smt. Naresh Kumari has categorically stated that Smt. Naresh Kumari was aged between 17 to 19 years. She herself has stated her age as 17 at the time of recording her statements. At that age she can reasonably be said to have attained the age of discretion. When this fact is read alongwith her own statement that she was being treated with cruelty by her husband Ashok. On such evidence, it is not difficult to conclude that Smt. Naresh Kumari could have left the house of her husband of her own sweet will to find the company of another fellow. 8. Initially, Smt. Naresh Kumari was taken from Aligarh to Agra by bus. Neither in the bus nor at the bus stand she complaint of her being Kidnapped by Alishar. Then she remained for sufficient long time at village Kheragarh and thereafter at Shastri Nagar and Havel i Ka Nagla. At all those places she used to go outside the house to respond to the call of nature and to do other manual work. She did not complain of her kidnapping or of her subjection to rape by the present appellants or any of them against her consent to any of the villagers or resident of those place. All these facts and circumstances and the conduct of Smt. Naresh Kumari herself clearly suggest that she had not been wrongfully confined or detained by any of the present appellants at any place against her will and/or subjected to sexual intercourse against her consent. 9. PW 2 Vasudeo is the father of Smt. Naresh Kumari. His statement is also relevant to know the true facts. He has stated that Ashok, to whom Smt. Naresh Kumari had been married, had approached him to know whether Smt. Naresh Kumari had reached his house or not. That was why the report of her leaving the company of her husband was never lodged either by Ashok or Vasudeo. Then Vasudeo stated that when the police had given the custody of Smt. Naresh Kumari to him, he immediately sent her to the house of Ashok. At that point of time also Vasudevo did not think it proper to pursue the matter regarding the alleged kidnapping and detention of Smt. Naresh Kumari by the present appellants. Then Vasudeo stated that when the police had given the custody of Smt. Naresh Kumari to him, he immediately sent her to the house of Ashok. At that point of time also Vasudevo did not think it proper to pursue the matter regarding the alleged kidnapping and detention of Smt. Naresh Kumari by the present appellants. It is thus clear that the prosecution case did not stand proved beyond doubt by cogent and reliable evidence against any of the appellants. 10. To sum-up, I am clearly of the opinion that in the present case the prosecution had not been successful in proving its cases against any of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. All the three appellants are, accordingly, entitled to be acquitted of the offences they have been found guilty of. 11. In the result, the impugned judgment and order dated 28.5.1984 are hereby set-aside and Dongar and Ramdayal are acquitted of the offence under section 366 IPC. Dongar and Pati Ram are acquitted of the offence under section 368 IPC. If the amount of fine has been realised from them, the same shall be returned to them. All the three appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******