JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - Appellant/accused Sanjeev Kumar, aged 20 years was put to trial for commission of offences under Sections 363/366/376 of Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment dated 9.8.1990, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. However, he was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Hence this appeal by the appellant/accused. 2. It was case of prosecution that on 14.6.1989, Smt. Chameli (PW4) was alone in her house when at about 6.00 PM, appellant/accused Sanjeev Kumar came there. He served her some Halwa (sweet dish). Thereafter the appellant/accused told her that her son was admitted in the clinic of Dr. Ramji Dass at Rohtak. On this, Smt. Chameli accompanied the accused and proceeded towards the shop of Dr. Ramji Dass. On the way, she became unconscious and regained her consciousness on the next day. She found herself in the house of one Bal Kishan at Gurgaon. She was kept there forcibly by the appellant/accused for eight days and it was allegation against the appellant/accused that during this period, he threatened Smt. Chameli with death and committed rape on her against her wishes and without her consent. 3. On 22.6.1989, appellant/accused and Smt. Chameli went to Bahadurgarh from where they were to go to Vaishno Devi and at about 11.00 AM, on that day, she saw her husband who was a Head Constable and called him. Then she was rescued and the appellant/accused was arrested. It is necessary to mention here that prior thereto, FIR was recorded at the instance of Gulab Singh, husband of Smt. Chameli. Smt. Chameli was medico-legally examined by the doctor on 22.6.1989. Her statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code was also recorded on 23.6.1989. 4. After completion of investigation, final report was prepared and submitted before the trial Court and the appellant/accused was put to trial for commission of offences under Sections 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. 5. The prosecution led evidence to prove its case. After completion of investigation, statement of appellants/accused was record under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his false implication. 5. The prosecution led evidence to prove its case. After completion of investigation, statement of appellants/accused was record under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his false implication. He further took a stand that to blackmail his father, who was a Customs Officer, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He led no evidence in defence. 6. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence on record, acquitted the appellant/accused of the charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. However, he was convicted and sentenced for commission of an offence under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code as mentioned in para No. 1 of this order. 7. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, appearing on behalf on appellant/accused vehemently contends that the conviction of appellant/accused under Section 366 Indian Penal Code was not justified. He, by referring to the statement of Gulab Singh, husband of Smt. Chameli and that of Smt. Chameli herself, argued that no case was made out against the appellant/accused. He stated that so far as the testimony of Gulab Singh PW-3 is concerned, his statement is self contradictory and he had tried to make many improvements when he appeared in the witness-box. Counsel further argued that a reading of statement of PW-4 Chameli would make it very clear that it was a case of elopement with the appellant/accused of her own from will; that the appellant/accused was about 19 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence whereas Smt. Chameli was about 29/30 years of age and was having five children; that Smt. Chameli was having good health and it cannot be presumed that she could be kept for eight days under threat and that, too, in a house where other people were also residing; that the appellant was a young man when the alleged occurrence took place and now he is a grown up person and resides with his family in a very peaceful manner; that as per information available with the counsel, the appellant/accused had not indulged in any other offence after his conviction in this case and that during the pendency of trial, the appellant had remained behind the bars for some time. The counsel, in the end, prays that the appeal be accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused be set aside. 8. Mr. The counsel, in the end, prays that the appeal be accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused be set aside. 8. Mr. Nagra, appearing for the State of Haryana has vehemently controverted the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant. He has stated that so far as offence under Section 366 Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is duly proved against the appellant from the evidence on record and that the punishment awarded to him is in proportion to the offence committed by him. He, by referring to the statement of PW-4, argued that the case of prosecution was fully proved on record and further stated that minor discrepancies here and there in the prosecution evidence were not fatal to its case. Eventually, the counsel prays that the appeal be dismissed, it being without any substance. 9. This Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, has come to the conclusion that the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant have force and deserve to be accepted. 10. With the assistance of counsel for both the parties, this Court has gone through the statement of PW-3 and PW-4. It is apparent from their statements that Gulab Singh, husband of Smt. Chameli had tried to make many improvements at different stages. This clearly indicates that this witness was not trust- worthy. Even the trial Court had not accepted the version given by this witness in toto. Rather, the trial Court had relied upon some portion of statement of PW-3 Gulab Singh. It is apparent from the statement of Gulab Singh that he knew nothing as to under what circumstances, Smt. Chameli was abducted. However, when he appeared in the witness-box, he had tried to state that she was given some sweet dish for consumption and after consuming the same, she had become unconscious and accordingly she was abducted by the appellant/accused. This Court feels that this witness is not trust-worthy and his evidence could be over-looked. So far as PW-4 Smt. Chameli is concerned, she is discrepant, with regard to her statement earlier recorded by the police. 11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/accused was of 19 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence whereas Smt. Chameli was of 29/30 years of age and was having five grown up children. Her statement is to be looked into keeping the above-mentioned facts in mind. 11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/accused was of 19 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence whereas Smt. Chameli was of 29/30 years of age and was having five grown up children. Her statement is to be looked into keeping the above-mentioned facts in mind. In her cross-examination, she had candidly admitted that in the house where she was kept for eight days, many other people were residing and the house was situated in a Mohalla. She had also stated that there was a shop of Tailor in front of that house and many other shops were also situated nearby. It is also her admission that many other ladies were also residing in that house. She had further stated that the appellant/accused was bringing food for her from outside and if that was so, during the period of absence of appellant/accused, she could have informed the other ladies about the incident or might have left the house as there was no impediment in her way in that regard. This clearly indicates that she was residing with the appellant/accused of her own free will and was not under any threat. It is also apparent from her statement that she went to Bahadugarh from Gurgaon in a bus. At that time, she made no attempt to inform anybody and also failed to raise any he and cry. She had admitted in her evidence that many persons were available at the bus stand. 12. Under the circumstances, it can reasonably be presumed that it was a case of elopement and not a case of abduction/kidnapping as has been alleged by the prosecution against the appellant/accused. 13. Mr. Kapoor has relied upon a judgment of this court title as Tara Devi v. State of Haryana, 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 148. This Court after analysing the evidence, in that case, came to a definite conclusion that the prosecutrix was taken from one place to another and she failed to raise any hue and cry and responded to the attempts of accused in that case. As such, it was a case of elopement. It was opined that the lady in that case was having illicit relations with the accused. 14. The facts of this case are also similar to the one referred to above. Smt. Chameli was of mature age, having five children. As such, it was a case of elopement. It was opined that the lady in that case was having illicit relations with the accused. 14. The facts of this case are also similar to the one referred to above. Smt. Chameli was of mature age, having five children. As against this, the appellant/accused was of tender age of 19 years only. From the facts and circumstances which have come on the record, this Court feels that her statement was neither credible nor trust-worthy and this made the entire case of the prosecution doubtful. 15. In view of the reasons given above, this appeal is accepted. Resultantly, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. Appeal allowed.