JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Pradeep Shrimal, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan. 2. This appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 20.04.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.3/91 convicting the appellant under section 366 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 6 months. 3. The prosecution case is traceable to a written report lodged by Ishak Ali, ASI, Police Station Nadbai, Bharatpur to the effect that acting on a telephonic information received at about 4.30 p.m. on the same date i.e. 14.10.1990, he went on patrol and found the prosecutrix Shanti alongwith the appellant together in a suspicious condition. In the written report, it was disclosed that the prosecutrix alleged that about a month back, the appellant, on the promise of marriage with her, had brought her thereto and that thereafter, she was being taken from one place to the other and was even tried to be sold away. She expressed apprehension that the appellant might ultimately sell her on valuable consideration. 4. On this, investigation followed, which was conducted by the same police officer and eventually chargesheet was laid against the appellant under section 366 IPC. The appellant denied the charge and was made to stand trial. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the prosecutrix. The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. also abided by the denial of charge and stated further that the prosecutrix had accompanied him from Bengal for medical treatment and that he had taken her from place to place to arrange for the same. 5. The prosecutrix (PW-1), in her statement on oath, stated that the appellant, representing to her that she would be taken to a hospital for the treatment of her leg, had brought her from Bangal. She alleged that he did so, however, to marry her but eventually he even did not do so and made her move from village to village. She also alleged that he, at times, used to assault her as well. She, however, admitted that she had voluntarily accompanied the appellant when being offered to provide her medical treatment. She alleged that he did so, however, to marry her but eventually he even did not do so and made her move from village to village. She also alleged that he, at times, used to assault her as well. She, however, admitted that she had voluntarily accompanied the appellant when being offered to provide her medical treatment. In cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted further that she had remained with the appellant for over a month and in course thereof, she had moved with him in public transport i.e. rail and bus. She also admitted that she used to accompany the appellant on her own. She stated further that on being requested by her to reach her to her place, the appellant used to assure her to do so after her treatment was complete. 6. Having regard to the charge that has been levelled against the appellant, it is not considered essential to elaborate on the other evidence on record. 7. Whereas Mr. Sinsinwar has argued that on a plain reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix, it would be apparent that the none of the ingredients of the section 366 Cr.P.C. has been made out and thus, the conviction of the appellant is patently illegal. Mr.Shrimal has argued that as the appellant, inspite of repeated requests of the prosecutrix, had not taken her back to her place of residence, the prosecution has been able to prove the charge of abduction against him beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the testimony of the prosecutrix on oath, I am inclined to sustain the plea taken on behalf of the defence, though according to the prosecutrix, she had accompanied the appellant on being represented by him that he would arrange for her treatment, her conduct thereafter during her stay for about a month with him, discloses that no force or undue influence has been used/exercised by him (appellant) on her. On the other hand, it is an admission that she used to move with her in his company willingly. That they used to travel by rail and bus is also admitted by her. On the other hand, it is an admission that she used to move with her in his company willingly. That they used to travel by rail and bus is also admitted by her. In the opinion of this Court had the prosecutrix been forced to remain with the appellant in this background, she would have resisted and raised hue and cry as and when such opportunity did come her way to secure her release. This has not been done. 9. On the totality of the consideration of the legal facet of the evidence of the prosecutrix, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the charge of abduction against the appellant has not been made out. The impugned judgment and order, on perusal thereof, is not sustainable in law and on facts. 10. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is thus, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is thus, set at liberty. The bail bonds stand discharged. The office would remit the records.Appeal allowed. *******