JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed by the convicted accused-persons Gokal Ram and Naina Ram against a judgment dated 20.5.1987 whereby both were found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 368 and 392 of the I.P.C. For each offence rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 100/- was awarded. For non-payment of fine additional simple imprisonment for 15 days on each count was awarded. Principal Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since both the appeals pertain to the said judgment both are being disposed of by this Judgment. 2. On 13.8.1986 Smt. Ramu W/o Narayan lodged an oral FIR at police station Hanumangarh Junction, according to which she was married to Narayan Gujar and had a daughter aged 1 1/2 years. Some 7-8 days prior to 13.8.1986, the appellant Nainaram allegedly went to her in-laws house and conveyed that he has received 2-3 letters from Ahmedabad written by the sister of Smt. Ramu and believing Nainaram she proceeded with him without seeking permission of her husband or any other member of the family. According to the FIR they proceeded on foot and soon Gokal joined them. During the night they stayed in Village 'Atholiya' and next day she along with two appellants reached Jaipur by bus. At Jaipur the appellants assured her that they are taking her to Ahemdabad. However, next day they took her to Hanumangarh where she was lodged in a room. According to the FIR, the appellant Gokal Ram gave a severe beating to her and insisted that she should marry the brother of Gokal Ram. After she declined the offer her ornaments were removed by the two appellants. A case under Sections 366, 1 368 and 392 of the I.P.C. was registered and ultimately, both the appellants were put to trial and both were found guilty in the aforesaid manner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned public prosecutor for the State and have perused the record of the s trial Court. I find that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court are not sustainable and both the appeals deserve to be allowed. 4. PW/4 Smt. Ramu alone has tried to support the prosecution story. I find that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court are not sustainable and both the appeals deserve to be allowed. 4. PW/4 Smt. Ramu alone has tried to support the prosecution story. She has stated that the accused Nam offered her to take to Ahemdabad so that she could meet her sister and she left her home and both reached lo 'Bheem'. According to her, in Bheem, the appellant Gokal Ram met them and they went to Gokul's village where they stayed for the night. Further she has stated that at next day they boarded a bus from 'Bheem' and reached Jaipur. From there they boarded a train and reached Hanumangarh Junction. She was stated that in Hanumangarh she was lodged in the house of PW/1 Mangla where her ornaments were removed by the appellants. She has stated that she was given a severe beating in the process and the appellants were insisting that she should marry the appellant Gokal Ram. She has further stated that hearing the altercations persons of the neighbour-hood assembled and the police also came and she was escorted to the police:station where she lodged the FIR Ex.P/5. In this way it is clear that Smt. Isamu remained with the appellants for 7-8 days at various places. Strangely enough not a single person of Bheem, Atholiya, Jaipur or Hanumangarh has corroborated the prosecution story in any manner. 5. PW/1 Mangla has turned hostile and has denied the prosecution case in its entirety. The statement recorded in the court as PW/4 of Smt. Ramu is at variance with the FIR Ex.P/5. According to Ex43/5 she reached the p )lice station suo motu and lodged the FIR. In her Court statement she has stated that while she raised hue and cry many neighbours and the police arrived on the scene. No neighbour has been examined to corroborate the prosecution story. There is some evidence of recovery of ornaments but Smt. Ramu has not identified them in any test identification. 6. PW/2 Malaram has stated that the recovery memos were got signed fro m him but the same were not read over to him. There is no acceptable evidence to believe that Smt. Ramu was robbed of the said articles. There is on circumstance to indicate that she did not go with the accused-persons of he' own volition. 7. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. There is no acceptable evidence to believe that Smt. Ramu was robbed of the said articles. There is on circumstance to indicate that she did not go with the accused-persons of he' own volition. 7. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment dated 20.5.1987 is set-aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of all the charges.Appeal Allowed - Conviction Set Aside. *******