Judgment Mohd. Yamin, J.-This is an appeal by appellants Bhima and Ganesh against the Judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated 30-9-1983 by which he convicted them for offence under Section 366, IPC and sentenced each one of them to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs. 100/-and in default they were ordered to undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 29-11-1980 at about 10.00 PM Nauja reported to Station House Officer, Delwara that his daughter Narki aged about eight years along with Heeri and Bhuri had gone to Nami Beeda in order to collect fodder. Bheema had accompanied them. In the evening they were returning and when they reached near Bheru Ghati a jeep came from behind. Some persons came out of the jeep. They threw the head load of Narki and took away Narki in that jeep. Bhuri and Heeri made hue and cry but it was of no effect. The complainant had doubt that Vasia had abducted her because he had asked the complainant to engage Narki with his son but the relationship could not materialised as Vasia’s son was lame. Consequently Narki was betrothed in another village. He had also a doubt that Lalu and Bheema were also associated with crime. 3. Police registered a case under Sections 363 and 366, IPC. Narki was recovered and was medically examined. Her age was found to be between 13-14 years. However, challan was submitted before the Magistrate having jurisdiction against the appellants as well as some co-accused persons. He committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on 31-1-1983 framed charges against Bheema. Khema, Sakha, Ganesh, Dunga and Thania under Section 366, IPC and against other accused persons under Sections 366 and 368, IPC. Appellants denied their indictment and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all. Statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313, CrPC They examined DW 1 Vasa and DW 2 Amra. After hearing both the parties learned Sessions Judge convicted appellants Ganesh and Bhima under Section 366, IPC and sentenced them as stated above. He acquitted all other accused persons. Appellants aggrieved by their conviction and sentence have filed this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record. He acquitted all other accused persons. Appellants aggrieved by their conviction and sentence have filed this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated as offence under Section 366, IPC was not proved against them. His contention is that Narki had not seen them earlier and could not have identified. Similarly the other two ladies also could not have identified the accused appellants. He submitted that no test identification parade was conducted during investigation and hence identification of the accused appellants during trial is of no help to the prosecution. He, therefore, submitted that the accused appellants deserve acquittal. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the Judgment of learned trial Court. 7. Themost material witness in this case is Narki herself She is PW-6. She has stated that she had gone to collect fodder and two other ladies Bhuri and Heeri accompanied her. When they were returning six persons came in a jeep. They were Shaka, Ganesh, Khema, Bheema and DungarSingh. She has stated that Bheema pointed towards her and said that this girl should be caught and taken away. Thereafter Ganesh threw her head load and he and Khema caught hold of her and put in the vehicle. She was taken to Chhota Bherada. She was going to be married with Lachchha’s son Mangu. She refused to do so. She was thereafter taken to different places and ultimately to Kareda where she was left in the house of a Gujar. She denied that she was betrothed to Vasa’s son Mangu. Even if it was so, the appellants had no power or authority to take away Narki in this manner. However, she had admitted that in her statement under Section 164, CrPC Exhibit D/3 names of Mangu, Gajesh, Shaka, Hema and Dungar were not mentioned. She was confronted with her statement Exhibit D/4 recorded under Section 161, CrPC by the Investigating Officer and she admitted that it did not contain the names of Mangu, Ganesh, Shaka, Hema and Dungar. However, names of Bheema and Ganesh were mentioned in statement under Section 164, CrPC Similarly, in her statement under Section 161, CrPC she did not name anyone else except Ganesh resident of Bherka. However, names of Bheema and Ganesh were mentioned in statement under Section 164, CrPC Similarly, in her statement under Section 161, CrPC she did not name anyone else except Ganesh resident of Bherka. She could know his name only because he was addressed as Ganesia by other persons when she lived after abduction with accused persons. She stated so in Exhibit D/4. So it is very clear from her previous statements that she did not know the appellants at all from before. Therefore, she could not have identified. It is settled law that identification of an accused in Court is of no help to the prosecution when during the investigation no test identification parade has been conducted. Therefore, the identification of these two accused appellants during trial by the witness is of no help to the prosecution. 8. Now I will turn to the statements of other witnesses. Out of two ladies who accompanied Narki only Bhuri PW-11 has been produced. She did not support the case of prosecution. She categorically stated that a jeep did come but she did not identiiy’ any person who took away Narki. So she is not helpful to the prosecution at all. Prosecution has not produced Heeri. 9. The first information report named Bheema who was alleged to have accompanied the ladies but he was not produced as a witness on behalf of prosecution. It is PW-2 Nauja who reported the matter to police. He stated that it were Teela and Partha who informed him that his daughter was abducted by certain persons but he admitted that the names were not told to him by them. He has stated that instead his brother’s wife Smt. Heera told him that the persons from Bherda who were Nanda, Amra, Ganesh and Saka took Narki. These names were known to the witness before lodging the report but in the report Exhibit P12 itself he did not mention the name instead he suspected that Vasia had taken Narki and Lalu and Bheema were also suspected by him. It is admitted even by this witness that no test identification parade was conducted during the investigation. 10. Fromthe report of medical examination of Narki which is Exhibit P17 on record it is proved by Dr. B. P. Gupta PW-12 that the age of Narki was between 13-14 years. It is admitted even by this witness that no test identification parade was conducted during the investigation. 10. Fromthe report of medical examination of Narki which is Exhibit P17 on record it is proved by Dr. B. P. Gupta PW-12 that the age of Narki was between 13-14 years. She was minor but when it is an admitted position that she did not know these appellants from before and no test identification parade was ever conducted during investigation, the appellants cannot be held liable for taking away and thereby committing offence under Section 366, IPC. 11. In view of above discussion the appeal is worth acceptance. It is accepted and the appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds are discharged.