Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Both Criminal Appeal Nos, 162 of 1990 and 190 of 1990 arise from the common judgment dated 11th May., 1990, rendered by Shri Jaleshwar Ram, erstwhile Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 205/56 of 1982, by which the appellants suffered conviction under Sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 , in default of which, they were to undergo further imprisonment for sixmonths. However, sentence of imprisonment in default of fine would run concurrently. Both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Shortly after Asharfi Sahni (PW 4) returned to his house from Motihari, he learnt from his daughter-inlaw about appellants having enticed away his grand daughter Kabutri Devi, aged about 12 years on pretext of taking her to Vishnu Yaga, with an object to compel her marriage. The worried grandfather made hectic search for the missing grand daughter but there was no trace of her. He also made inquiries from Raghunath Salmi, Rajendra Sahni and others and finding no trace of the victim girl, set the Police in motion and with these narrations, statement of Asharfi Sahni was recorded at Madhuban Police Station, District East Champaran, which also forms basis of first information report drawn up on 13-4-1978. After commencement of the investigation. Police took necessary steps for recovery of the victim girl, visited various places, recorded statement of the witnesses and eventually, recovered Kabutri Devi from the house of one Ramayan Singh in village Khwajapur which is situated in the district of Gopalganj. The Police is also alleged to have apprehended appellant Bhageshwar Sahni from the house of the said Ramayan Singh and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. The appellants on being committed to the Court of Sessions were eventually sent for trial. 3. At trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses and the trial Court on appreciation of evidences placed on record on behalf of the State found the appellants guilty and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 4. The appellants on being committed to the Court of Sessions were eventually sent for trial. 3. At trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses and the trial Court on appreciation of evidences placed on record on behalf of the State found the appellants guilty and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 4. Now adverting to the evidences adduced on behalf of the State, one finds Yogendra Sabni (PW 1) stating before the Trial Court about he having witnessed the appellants in the company of Kabutri Devi and on inquiry he was told that they had taken the girl to visit the fair. After he learnt about missing of Kabutri Devi, he stated to have informed Asharfi Sahni about movement of Kabutri Devi with the appellants. Similar had been evidence of Phulchand Sahni (PW 2) about Kabutri to be in the company of the appellants while going to witness a fair. Asharfi Sahni (PW 4), who happens to be the person, who set the Police in motion, apart from reiterating his earlier versions, which he rendered before the Police, also stated to have visited village Khwajapur in the company of the Police and also Mohan, Lal Bahadur and Sheonandan Salmi, pursuant to which Kabutri was recovered from the house of Ramayan Singh and also that appellant Baheshwar Sahni also was apprehended from the house. Nathuni Salmi (PW 6) stated to have witnessed Akloo Sahni. Dhanwanti, Marachia, Bhageshwar and an unidentified person in the company of Kabutri Devi in the fair when on interrogation, Kabutri stated to have come to visit the fair. He would state to have learnt subsequently from Asharfi Sahni about elopement of Kabutri Devi when he disclosed complicity of the appellants to him who were Witnessed by him while taking Kabutri in their company. Rajendra Sah (PW 7) would state before the Court to have witnessed Kabutri in the company of appellant Bagheswar Salmi and Dhanwanti, when Kabutri, on her own, stated to him that she was going to village fair. Kabutri Devi (PW 8) would narrate before the Court that after Punia Devi took her to her house she noticed there Marachia and appellants Dhanwanti, Alok and Bhageshwar Sahni who asked to go to the fair and she accordingly accompanied them. Some persons of the village happened to meet them to whom she disclosed that she would come back by the night. Some persons of the village happened to meet them to whom she disclosed that she would come back by the night. Evidence of Kabutri Devi further was that she was taken to various places by the appellants and eventually, while rest of the appellants left her company, appellant Bagheshwar Sahni. while moving her to different places, eventually took her to the house of Ramayan Singh in village Khwajapur in the district of Gopalganj. Her evidence was quite vacillating as to the object for which she was confined for two months in the house of Ramayan Singh. Md. Altaf (PW 9) was a formal witness and there is nothing material in his evidence to weigh consideration. Ramdeo Sah (PW 3) and Reghunath Sahni (PW 5) would, however, stated in their evidences about Kabutri Devi to be in the company of only Babageshwar Sahni when they witnessed both of them moving on a bicycle. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 5. A lot of criticism was made by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the findings recorded by the Trial Court and it is sought to be urged that in view of strained relation between Asharfi Sahni and the appellants emerging from prolonged litigation between them, which has also been admitted by some of the witnesses including Asharfi Sahni, it was quite unusual that the witnesses who claimed to have witnessed Kabutri Devi in the company of the appellants would not disclose this fact to Asharfi, Sahni which is expected to be natural conduct of a witness. Contentions were raised that since enmity persisted between both the parties and there being candid admission of none-else but the informant that all the appellants except Bhageshwar Sahni were partidars, the possibility of false implication of the appellants could not be ruled out. 6. Contentions were raised that when Kabutri Devi is said to have been taken by appellant Bhageshawar Sahni to a number of places, had she at all been victim, it was expected of her to raise alarm and lastly it is urged that since the Police. Officer who is shown to have effected recovery of Kabutri Devi from the house of Ramayan Singh was not examined by the State the significance of factum of recovery is completely lost that being bereft of evidentiary value. Officer who is shown to have effected recovery of Kabutri Devi from the house of Ramayan Singh was not examined by the State the significance of factum of recovery is completely lost that being bereft of evidentiary value. Learned counsel would urge that the prosecution was launched against the appellant in the year 1978 and since then much water has flown over the Ganges and as the appellants, have faced rigorous of prosecution for last 22 years and had been apprehending sword of damocles over their heads justice requires that they be not sent to custody. Learned counsel for the State would resist the arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellants. 7. Some facts of the case emerging from the records are these Strained relation between the parties are admitted in view of evidence of PWs 5, 7 and also Asharfi Sahni (PW 4) who happens to be the person who set Police in motion. As has been evidence of Asharfi Sahni, several litigations were pending between the parties. It is admitted in positive terms by Asharfi Salmi that all the appellants. barring Bhageshwar, were pattidars, Once this situation about strained relationship between the parties is accepted on its face value, it looks improbable that the witnesses having claimed to have witnessed appellants taking. Kabutri Devi in their company, would not disclose the factum of elopement of Kabutri Devi by the appellants to her family member shortly after the incident. Even narration made by the witnesses about making disclosure with regard to company of Kabutri Devi with the appellants. appears to be incoherent. If the statement of the PW 1 was taken to be true on its face value, it was Asharfi Sahni himself who disclosed about elopement of Kabutri Devi by the appellants and if this logic is accepted, claim of the witnesses about having disclosed complicity of the appellants is lost. This witness would further state that Asharfi Sahani, without disclosing complicity of any person stated to him about an unidentified person kidnapping Kabutri Devi. Similar was the case of PW 2 who would state that it was Asharfi alone who told him that Akloo and Bhageshwar Sahni had taken away Kabutri Devi for marriage. As has been discussed above, some embellishments were also sought to be introduced by Asharfi in his statement, which he rendered before the Court as they are conspicuously wanting in his previous version. As has been discussed above, some embellishments were also sought to be introduced by Asharfi in his statement, which he rendered before the Court as they are conspicuously wanting in his previous version. Thought other witnesses were claiming to have rendered first hand information to Asharfi about elopement of Kabutri Devi, by them, the latter would state that he learnt about elopement of Kabutri Devi from none-else but his daughter-in-law suggesting complicity of the appellants. PW 6 Nathuni Salmi would state that when he witnessed Kabutri Devi in the company of appellants in the fair, he did not inform the family members of the victim girl. Attention of PW 1 was drawn by the defence about he having rendered statement before the Police about elopement of Kabutri Devi by the appellants. Attention of PW 2 was also drawn by the defence about he having interrogated Kabutri Devi on seeing her in the company of the appellants and he having eventually narrated the incident to Asharfi Salmi. Attention of Asharfi was also drawn by the defence about he having rendered similar statement before the Police with regard to getting information from his daughter-in-law about the appellants taking Kabutri Devi in their company. Attention of PW 6 was also drawn by the defence about similar statement having been rendered before the Police what has stated by him in the Court about Kabutri Devi to be in the company of the appellants. Attention of PW 7 Rajendra Sah was drawn about he having rendered statement before the Police about witnessing Kabutri in the company of Dhanwanti Devi. 8. Now, certain things merit consideration. Firstly that when the witnesses were stating before the Trial Court about having witnessed appellant in the company of Kabutri Devi which they claimed to have disclosed to Asharfi Sahni subsequently and their attention having been drawn by the defence about making such statement before the Police, but since the I.O. was not examined by the State, these questions remained unanswered. Equally, though the prosecution claimed recovery of Kabutri Devi from the house of Ramayan Singh in village Khwajapur neither any recovery memo was ever brought on the record by the State nor the I.O. was examined at trial to lend assurance to the prosecution allegation about recovery of Kabutri from the house of Ramayan Singh and also apprehension of Bhageshwar Sahni. If the statement of Asharfi Sahni is taken to be true the face value, it was also stated by him that recovery of Kabutri Devi was effected from the house of Ramayan Singh in presence of Mohan. Lal Bahadur and Sheonandan Sahni but none of them have been examined by the State and hence statement of Asharfi on this score remains uncorroborated. Last but not the least when Kabutri Devi claimed to have been removed from place to place by appellant Bhageshwar, rightly she had good occasion to attract Police or the public but there is no such evidence. She is to be believed that she remained confined in the house of Ramayan Sahni for about two months there is no evidence that anyone took recourse to the Police authority. Even Asharfi Sahani would admit in positive terms that on receipt of information from the witnesses about Kabutari Devi in the company of the appellants while going to fair he neither visited the house of the appellants nor took recourse to Police authority instantly. The defence has a grievance that it was only after lapse of two days that the Police authority was taken recourse to by Asharfi Sahani. Evidence of Kabutari Devi was most vacillating as though she was stating that appellant Bhageshwar did not make proposal before her for marriage she would change her version that he was insisting on her for marriage. She would also not complain about ill treatment or about any bid on the part of Bhageshwar Sahni to have bodily contact with her even she was kept confined for two months. There does not appear any intervening circumstance why he would not translate his design into action if he enticed her with such an object. It is admitted that Ramayan Singh from whose house there was alleged recovery of Kabutari Devi has neither been made accused though he was an accomplice, nor he was made a witness of prosecution case. Apart from these infirmities that have crept in the prosecution version, the defence of the appellants that after Kabutari Devi had visited the house of the appellants on the occasion of marriage in the family, the appellants were falsely roped in by Asharfi in view of pending litigation between them, does not appear to be improbable. Apart from these infirmities that have crept in the prosecution version, the defence of the appellants that after Kabutari Devi had visited the house of the appellants on the occasion of marriage in the family, the appellants were falsely roped in by Asharfi in view of pending litigation between them, does not appear to be improbable. This fact too cannot be lost sight of that the appellants have faced the rigours of prosecution for last more than 22 years and thus taking into consideration the discrepant statements of the witnesses, the improbabilities running throughout the entire prosecution case. I consider it expedient to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. Thus, the findings\recorded by the Trial Court is accordingly set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are also discharged from the liability of bail bonds. Both the appeals accordingly succeeded.