JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 13.9.1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 86/83 convicting the accused under sections 376, 366 & 323 IPC, this appeal is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. 3. On reappreciation of the evidence, the prosecution story as disclosed by it is that in the night of 11.5.1983, PW 14 along with others were sleeping near Power House No. 5, where they were working as labourers and were told in the early morning by Kanti Lal and Jeevna Bheel who were sleeping further away from there on old Panchalwasa Road aicing with some women that the appellant along with others came near them in the night at 11 O'clock and forcibly took away Paro who was then raped and who thereafter returned. On the basis of this, first information report was registered, investigation was taken and on completion of same, four persons were prosecuted for the offence under sections 147, 323, 366 or in the alternative 366/149-376 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion of guilt only in relation to Rukma as aforesaid and has proceeded to convict him as aforesaid and acquit the three other accused persons on the basis of the evidence as stands today. 4. The victim Paro is examined as PW 3. She has deposed that she along with other witnesses were sleeping on sands near Power House No. 5, when the accused came there along with three others who she did not recognise and took the witness away from others where they were sleeping. She then stated that the accused get her slept on the grounds and removed her "Petticot" and the accused himself also was naked and he then had forcibly intercoursed with her. She has averred that accused had forcibly intercoursed with her for more than three times and has admitted that except for the accused, none else had intercoursed with her which is the reason for their acquittal. The witness alleged that she had lodged the report whereas, PW 14 Paro claims that she lodged the report. She has averred that accused had forcibly intercoursed with her for more than three times and has admitted that except for the accused, none else had intercoursed with her which is the reason for their acquittal. The witness alleged that she had lodged the report whereas, PW 14 Paro claims that she lodged the report. The witness has named the persons who were present at the time when she was abducted and those persons have been examined by the prosecution. 5. I scrutinised the evidence of those persons, all of them generally corroborated what has been stated by the witness and all of them state that the prosecutrix Paro was taken away by accused-Rukma in their presence. I will only quote the evidence of PW 4 Bhuri and Kanti Lal in this regard. Bhuri has stated that she along with Paro, Kali, Mangu and Kanti Lal and Jeevna were working at Power House No. 5 and were sleeping on the sands in the night. She then alleged that:- " bu yksxksa us vkdj gedks mBk;k vkSj gedks ihVkA " 6. However, PW 3 Paro does not talk of any beating given to other women by the accused. It is interested to note what Bhuri has to state thereafter, she says that: The witness then came back after two hours. She candidly admits in her cross-examination that after the accused took away Paro, they went back to sleep. Such conduct is consistent only with one inference which is Paro's going with the accused voluntarily. PW 5 Kali also speaks of being asked regarding her virginity and told that she was married. To the same effect is the evidence of Manguri. All these persons voluntarily witnessed about going away of Paro. 7. However, the testimony of Kanti Lal who is said to be an eye-witness of abduction is entirely different. He states that the accused persons came there and took away all the women, and Kali, Bhuri and Manguri came back in half an hour and Paro came after about two hours and she told them that she has been raped. This witness has not made attempt to save Paro, did not lodge any report and has not given any reason why he could not go to the Police or rescue of paro immediately on seeing her abduction. This witness has not made attempt to save Paro, did not lodge any report and has not given any reason why he could not go to the Police or rescue of paro immediately on seeing her abduction. To be the similar effect is evidence of other male members allegedly present at the time of occurrence took place. On reappreciation of this evidence, I am convinced that it is the case of Paro's going voluntarily and willingly with Rukma to have sexual pleasure. Consequently, there is no reason of, maintain the conviction as recorded by the learned trial judge. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. Bail bonds, if any are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******