JUDGMENT 1. - The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh, Camp Bangu (Raj.), whereby the learned Judge has convicted Shiv Lal, respondent No. 1, for offence under Section 363 I.P.C., but has acquitting him of offence under Sections 366 an 366A I.P.C. The learned Judge has acquitted Nand Lal, Phool Chand, Kailash Chandra, Lalu and Shankar Lal, respondent Nos. 2 to 6 respectively for the offences under Sections 363, 342, 366 and 366A I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.9.2005, Ugam Chand (PW-3) had filed a written report before the Police Station, Bangu wherein he had claimed that his niece, Sarita, the daughter of his brother - Rameshwar Lal, had gone out of the house, in the evening of 16.9.2005, for answering the call of nature. However, ever since then, she has not returned. Therefore, along with the Sarpanch, Ghansi Lal, and others, he have went looking for her. On the next day, they went to Kankariya. They were informed that five boys and a girl had come to Shankarlal's place. When they asked Shankarlal, initially he denied about the five boys and the girl having come to his place. However, later on, he admitted this fact. Subsequently, the group of persons reached Singoli, where they discovered Sarita and Shiv Lal in a room. When Shiv Lal saw them, he promptly ran away. On the basis of the said report, a formal F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 297/2005, was chalked out for offences under Sections 342, 363 and 366 I.P.C. Although the charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 363, 366A and 342 I.P.C., but subsequently the charges were framed for offences under Sections 363, 342, 366 and 366A I.P.C. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and submitted eighteen documents. After going thorough the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted and acquitted the accused-respondents as mentioned above. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that since the prosecutrix, Sarita (PW-1), had named all the accused respondents, the learned Judge should have convicted them for the aforementioned offences. Moreover, the learned Judge has failed to give cogent reasons for acquitting the accused-respondents and for convicting Shiv Lal for merely offence under Section 363 I.P.C. 5. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that since the prosecutrix, Sarita (PW-1), had named all the accused respondents, the learned Judge should have convicted them for the aforementioned offences. Moreover, the learned Judge has failed to give cogent reasons for acquitting the accused-respondents and for convicting Shiv Lal for merely offence under Section 363 I.P.C. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have strenuously contended that after meticulously examining the testimonies, after considering the fact that both father of prosecutrix and other important witnesses have turned hostile and after giving cogent reasons, the learned Judge was justified in acquitting respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for the aforementioned offences and for convicting Shiv Lal for offence under Section 363 I.P.C. Hence, the learned counsel have supported the impugned judgment. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Judge has noticed the fact that according to the complainant himself Shankar Lal had helped the party in trying to locate the prosecutrix. Moreover, he has also noticed the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged on the information given by Shankar Lal and yet Shankar Lal was subsequently made an accused-person. The learned Judge has also noticed the fact that due to the election rivalry, there was animosity between the complainant and the accused-respondents. Moreover, the learned Judge has also noticed the fact that there is clear-cut contradiction as to who had forced the prosecutrix to come with them, whether it was Shiv Lal or it was Shankar Lal. Lastly, he also noticed the fact that from the testimony of Sarita, the prosecutrix, it is unclear whether Kailash, Phool Chand, Laluram had enticed her or not. According to her, Nand Lal, who had come to her house and had taken her away. Thus, the learned Judge has given cogef. reasons for acquitting respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 7. As far as acquitting Shiv Lal of offence under Sections 366 and 366) the learned Judge has clearly noted that according to the prosecutrix, she was no taken away either for the purpose of marriage or for the purpose for illicit sexua intercourse. In fact, although they were found in a closed room, she does no allege that Shiv Lal had misbehaved with her. In fact, although they were found in a closed room, she does no allege that Shiv Lal had misbehaved with her. Thus, the learned Judge has also given cogent reasons for acquitting Shiv Lal for offences under Sections 366 ant 366A and convicting him for offence under Section 363 I.P.C. Therefore, the last contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor is unacceptable.Hence, this criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******