JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.01.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Case No. 29/1987 convicting the accused-appellant No. 1 under section 366 IPC and sentencing him to suffer 3 years R.I. and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof to undergo further 1 month's R.I. Thereby the appellants No. 2 & 3 were convicted under section 368 IPC and sentenced to suffer 1 years R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo further period of 15 days R.I. 2. I have heard Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The prosecution case is traceable to the FIR dated 13.03.1987 filed by one Shri Bhajan, father of the victim, Gyani whose whereabouts were not known prior to six months therefrom. According to the complainant, he having been informed that his daughter had been spotted on 07.03.1987 from Tejaji Chowk, Indore-Malhar Gate, Madhya Pradesh, the FIR was lodged. On completion of the investigation after registration of the police case, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants under sections 366, 376 & 379 IPC where-after charge was framed by the learned trial court against appellant No. 1 under section 366 & 376 IPC and against appellants No. 2 & 3 under sections 366, 376 & 368 IPC. The appellants denied the charges. At the trial, prosecution examined several witnesses including the prosecutrix and the Investigating Officer. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were acquitted of the charges under section 376 IPC but convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. 4. Mr. Garg has urged that as a consequence of the acquittal of the appellants under section 376 IPC, they (appellants) ought to have been exonerated of all the charges. He has argued that having regard to the prosecution case as a whole, the failure to prove the charge under section 376 IPC demolished the substratum thereof. Thus, the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with, he urged. 5. Referring to the evidence of the prosecutrix as a whole, Mr. Choudhary has argued that it would be apparent therefrom that the prosecution case is wholly untrustworthy. Thus, the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with, he urged. 5. Referring to the evidence of the prosecutrix as a whole, Mr. Choudhary has argued that it would be apparent therefrom that the prosecution case is wholly untrustworthy. As admittedly according to the prosecutrix she was taken from one place to other by train, her inertness and omission to raise any hue and cry, established her free will to accompany the appellant No. 1 thus rendering the charges levelled against him wholly unfounded. The learned counsel also relied on the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-3 who stated that at the earliest point of time following recovery of the prosecutrix, she did not implicate appellants No. 2 & 3. The learned counsel for the appellants thus has argued that the impugned judgment and order if sustained, would be a travesty of justice. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the minor inconsistencies in the prosecution case does not affect the essence thereof and thus, the learned trial court having recorded its finding of guilt against the appellants under section 366/368 IPC, no interference therewith is warranted. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a cumulative consideration of the evidence on record, more particularly, the testimony of Gyani PW-1, I am inclined to sustain the pleas advanced on behalf of the defence. Though it appears from the evidence of the prosecutrix Gyani PW-1 that while she was in her parents' house, the accused-appellant No. 1 had visited her on the date of occurrence with the plea that her husband Ram Khiladi had fallen in a well and her presence was required to attend on him and that on such representation she had accompanied him (accused-appellant No. 1), the allegation that she was kept under constant threat thereafter by the latter so much so that she was rendered unable to raise any alarm or draw the attention of even her co-passengers in the train in which she had travelled from place to place, does not commend for acceptance. The evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-3 is to the effect that initially the prosecutrix did not involve appellants No. 2 & 3 in the case of alleged sexual intercourse. The learned trial court acquitted the appellants under section 376 IPC. The evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-3 is to the effect that initially the prosecutrix did not involve appellants No. 2 & 3 in the case of alleged sexual intercourse. The learned trial court acquitted the appellants under section 376 IPC. Having regard to the fact that the prosecution case of abduction and rape is one composite whole, in my opinion, the acquittal of the appellants under section 376 IPC and omission of the prosecution to involve appellant No. 2 & 3 in the act of intercourse, does have lethal impact on the prosecution case in favour of the defence. The delay on the part of the prosecutrix's father to lodge the FIR with the Police is also a factor which weighs against the prosecution case. It is beyond ones apprehension as to why though the victim was married neither her husband nor her father did inform the police about her missing, though it was known to her household that she had accompanied the Appellant No. 1. 8. On a cumulative consideration of all above, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. In the above view of the matter, the judgment and order impugned is interfered with. The appellants are acquitted and are hereby discharged from the bail bonds.The appeal is allowed.Appal allowed. *******