JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.-Prosecution case initiated on complaint petition of one Md. Islamuddin in brief is that all the accused persons including appellants on 11.11.1987 came to the house of complainant and took away his wife with them. He is suspecting her sell to some one or having illicit intercourse. Further it is said that she was wearing Noor an ornament of silver and all the clothes were taken by them. On search complainant could know on 14.12.1987 that his wife was at the house of Subhan. He went there, tried to bring her back but was not allowed rather replied that she was sold to Subhan by accused appellants Jalil, Amerul and others. 2. After concluding the trial the case is ended in conviction and sentence to accused appellants. 3. In all six witnesses are examined in the case to substantiate the charge levelled against accused appellants. They are PW 1 Tamizuddin, PW 2 Kalimuddin, PW 3 Md. Nezamuddin, PW 4 Islamuddin, PW 5 Md. Mosmat Balhani and PW 6 Anjira Khatoon. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants is limited to the point that I.O. of the case is not examined along with victim of the case. According to learned counsel, whenever some one by force compels or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place is the abduction if that is of an woman with intention to compel to many any person against her will or any other that she may be forced or seduced to have illicit intercourse then only Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code applies. Basic thing is the application of force or using of any deceitful means that could be well described by the victim (wife of complainant). 5. In casual manner it is submitted on behalf of learned A.P.P. that her (victim) appearance could not be ascertained, so, that can be ignored when witnesses are there to state the abduction. 6. For examination of the victim it appears from the order of cognizance taking Court that without insistence of the complainant, his wife, so called victim of the case was examined making no statement about her abduction rather voluntarily leaving her husband’s home to come to her mother. 6. For examination of the victim it appears from the order of cognizance taking Court that without insistence of the complainant, his wife, so called victim of the case was examined making no statement about her abduction rather voluntarily leaving her husband’s home to come to her mother. This much of the statement of the victim appeared in course of inquiry may not be read for belying the witnesses examined on behalf of complainant but same is a reply to the submission of learned APP that she was not available to be produced for her examination. Leaving of the house is of no importance in the case of abduction if force is not used nor any deceitful means is applied for following the victim to accompany anyone. 7. Under such circumstance if victim is not examined it may be taken as death blow to prosecution/Complaint Case and conclusion of conviction is not safe which has not been considered by the trial Court. 8. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission of the parties, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 358/90/Tr.65/93 is set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they shall stand discharged from their liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 9. Let a copy of this Judgment along with lower Court records be sent back to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal allowed.