ORDER : S. Rajendra Babu, J. One Hari Kala, PW 3 working on daily wages as a labourer, is stated to have been abducted on 16-10-1982 by the respondent and two others and she was taken to Solan and, thereafter, to Bilaspur. The other three accused charged along with the respondent have since been acquitted and special leave petition against them has been dismissed. It is further stated that after Hari Kala was taken to Bilaspur, she was made to stay with the respondent for 7-8 days, during which period he indulged in sex with her twice. Later on, Hari Kala returned home by boarding a bus on 25-10-1982. Meanwhile, a complaint was lodged by Roop Lal, father of Hari Kala on 18-10-1982 about her disappearance. Hari Kala was examined by PW 1, Dr. Mrs Krishna Singhal, who gave evidence to the effect that Hari Kala must have been subjected to sexual intercourse recently or a few days prior to her medical examination. The respondent and three others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code. The trial court after examining the entire material on record found that the evidence of PW 3 Hari Kala was not worthy of acceptance because of the several discrepancies pointed out by the learned Judge in her evidence. In fact she has stated during the cross-examination that her earlier statement made in the examination-in-chief was not correct though she stuck to her original stand in answer to question by the Court. Further, the trial court noted that even after Roop Lal, father of Hari Kala was informed that she went along with Daulat Ram, respondent in a bus, no effort was made by either of the parents to secure her back and that gave an impression that the said Hari Kala must have voluntarily gone along with Daulat Ram; there was no explanation as to the period when the sexual intercourse is said to have been had by the respondent, though one may conclude that she may have been subjected to sexual intercourse a few days prior to the medical examination by PW 1, the doctor. Therefore, the trial Judge concluded that the offences charged against the accused were not established and did not find them guilty of offences and acquitted the respondents. On an appeal, the High Court affirmed the order passed by the trial court. 2. Therefore, the trial Judge concluded that the offences charged against the accused were not established and did not find them guilty of offences and acquitted the respondents. On an appeal, the High Court affirmed the order passed by the trial court. 2. Now in this appeal by special leave, the learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the law stated by this Court is that? "A man is not bound to return to her father's custody a girl who without any inducement on his part, has left her home and come to him; but if, at any time, he has attempted to induce her to leave home without her parents' consent, and she afterwards does so, he is guilty of the abduction of the girl, even though he disapproves of the act at the particular time at which she gives effect to his previous persuasions." Learned counsel further laid great stress on the fact that the medical evidence was clinching in this case inasmuch as the evidence of PW 1, the doctor, clearly establishes that Hari Kala had recently been subjected to sexual intercourse a few days prior to the date of the medical examination and, if that is so, the learned counsel submitted that Hari Kala having been in the company of the respondent during that period establishes his guilt. There is no evidence to show that she had left her parents' home at her own discretion. 3. The trial court has fully applied its mind to these two aspects of the matter on the basis of the evidence available on record. The trial court came to the conclusion that no inducement, allurement was offered and that the said Hari Kala had left her parents' home voluntarily and she accompanied the respondent to several places. Indeed, she went to the length of denying of having had sexual intercourse with the respondent. 4. On the totality of the matter, the trial court has come to the conclusion on broad probabilities of the case that the charges against the respondent are not established and we cannot term the same that such a view taken by the trial court and the High Court is either perverse or grossly erroneous as to call for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. 5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.