ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. These criminal appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment dated 10.02.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.99/2011, whereby it has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and sentenced them as under : Offences: Sentence awarded: 363 IPC 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 1 month additional simple imprisonment. 366 IPC 6 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 1 month additional simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.01.2010, a written report was filed by the prosecutrix “S” along with her brother Saeed Mansuri to the Superintendent of Police, Banswara. On the said complaint, FIR No.16/2010 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Banswara for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC against the appellants and one co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq. In the said complaint it was alleged that on 05.12.2009 when the complainant “S” was going to her uncle's house at about 07:00 AM, the accused persons came in a auto-rickshaw and abducted her. They took her to a deserted place, where the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq committed rape upon her. It was also alleged in the complaint that after commission of rape, all the accused persons dropped her and co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq at a private bus stand from where they went to Partapur and thereafter to Garhi, Sagwara and in between the way at deserted places the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq again committed rape upon her. Thereafter they went to Jalod, Gujarat, where also the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq committed rape upon her. It was further contended that the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq further took her to different places at Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, where the relatives of the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq reached and marriage (fudkg) of her with co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq was done. It was also alleged in the complaint that the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. It was further contended that the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq further took her to different places at Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, where the relatives of the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq reached and marriage (fudkg) of her with co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq was done. It was also alleged in the complaint that the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq at the instance of his mother forcibly got some papers signed by her and threatened her to inform the police that she went with the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq as per her own will. Several other allegations have been levelled in the FIR. 3. Finally the prosecutrix “S” was traced by the police on 05.01.2010 and handed over to her parents. It is mentioned in the FIR that as she was under threat and trauma, the FIR has been filed belatedly. 4. The police, after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR, has filed charge-sheet against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, however, the charge-sheet has been filed against the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC. The trial court, after committal, has framed charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. During the course of investigation, the prosecution has got examined as many as 12 prosecution witnesses and several documents have also been exhibited. The statements of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court, after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution, has convicted the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC vide judgment dated 10.02.2014. 5. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 10.02.2014 the appellants have preferred these criminal appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. It is contended that there is no iota of evidence available against the accused appellants to hold them guilty for the aforesaid offences. It is argued that the prosecutrix PW-1 in her statements has clearly stated that the accused appellants were not known to her before the incident and at the time of recording her statement before the trial court, she also failed to name the accused persons specifically. It is argued that the prosecutrix PW-1 in her statements has clearly stated that the accused appellants were not known to her before the incident and at the time of recording her statement before the trial court, she also failed to name the accused persons specifically. It is further contended that during her cross-examination, the prosecutrix PW-1 has also stated that her brother has informed her that the appellant-Raees Khan is residing behind their house, whereas the other appellants are not from their colony. It is contended that before the trial court she has failed to name which of the appellants has clamped her mouth and whom of them caught hold of her hands and legs. It is argued that from the above facts, it is clear that the prosecutrix has named the appellants on asking of his brother. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the PW-2 co-complainant Saeed Mansuri, brother of the prosecutrix, has stated in his Court statements that earlier he heard that the accused appellants have abducted his sister but later on the relatives of co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq informed that only the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq has abducted his sister. It is argued that from the said fact, it is clear that the brother of the prosecutrix PW-2 Saeed Mansuri has named the appellants on the basis of information supplied to him by some other persons. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that except the said piece of evidence no other evidence is available on record to suggest that the appellants have abducted the prosecutrix, however, the said piece of evidence is not sufficient to prove the charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Therefore, it is submitted that the trial court has wrongly placed reliance on the said piece of evidence and erred in convicting and sentencing the accused appellants vide impugned judgment for the aforesaid offences. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that though the allegation against the appellant is to the effect that they had abducted her in a auto-rickshaw but during the course of investigation, the police did not recover any auto-rickshaw. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that though the allegation against the appellant is to the effect that they had abducted her in a auto-rickshaw but during the course of investigation, the police did not recover any auto-rickshaw. It is also argued that the place, where the prosecutrix was allegedly abducted, is a busy road, however, the prosecution has failed to produce any person, who has witnessed the incident of abduction, which took place in day light. Learned counsel for the appellants has, therefore, prayed that there is no evidence available against the appellants and they are liable to be acquitted for the aforesaid offences but the trial court has illegally convicted them. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the appellants and argued that from the statements of the prosecutrix and the other material available on record, it is proved that the appellants abducted the prosecutrix on 05.12.2009 and thereafter, the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq committed rape upon her and in such circumstances, the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused appellants vide impugned judgment. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record. 11. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint that on 05.12.2009, when the prosecutrix was proceeding towards her uncle's house, suddenly near Kali Mata Temple situated at Ambabadi, District Banswara, the accused appellants along with co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq came in a auto-rickshaw and abducted her and took her to a deserted place near Nutan School, where the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq committed rape upon her. In the complaint it is alleged that after that the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq took her away to several places in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh and committed rape upon her. 12. As per the prosecution story, the role of the appellants is limited up to the abduction of the prosecutrix on 05.12.2009 near Kali Mata Temple, Ambabadi, District Banswara and the allegation of rape was against co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq only. 13. It is to be noticed that in the complaint, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that the accused appellant-Babar has clamped her mouth and other accused appellants viz. Riyaj Mohammed and Raees Khan had caught hold of her hands and legs and taken her away to a deserted place. Shafiq only. 13. It is to be noticed that in the complaint, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that the accused appellant-Babar has clamped her mouth and other accused appellants viz. Riyaj Mohammed and Raees Khan had caught hold of her hands and legs and taken her away to a deserted place. In the complaint, specific role has been attributed to each appellants, however, in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the role of the appellants has not been specified and only it is mentioned that five and six persons had pulled her in a auto-rickshaw and from where they took her away to a deserted place and all the accused persons had threatened and told her to put off the cloths and thereafter the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq committed rape upon her. In her Court statements the prosecutrix PW-1 has failed to name the accused persons rather said that the accused appellants were not known to her before the incident. She has also stated that she came to know the names of accused appellants as they were calling themselves when they had abducted her. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her brother has informed her that Raees Khan is residing behind their house whereas the other appellants are not of their colony. She further stated that she cannot elaborate that which of the accused appellants had clamped her mouth and whom of them caught hold of her hands and legs. 14. The relevant portion of the examination in chief of PW-1 reads as under:- ^^------ eSa eqyfteku esa ls fdlh dks ?kVuk ls igys ugha tkurh FkhA------------ uksV%& xokg us gkftj vnkyr vfHk;qDr fiUVw dks bZ'kkjk djds lgh igpkuk fd mlus xokg ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA xokg us vU; vfHk;qDrx.k dss ckjs esa dgk fd fiUVw ds lkFk vU; gkftj vnkyr vfHk;qDrx.k gh cykRdkj ds le; Fks fdUrq xokg ;g ugha crk ldrh gS fd vU; vfHk;qDrx.k esa fdldk D;k uke gSA ysfdu dsoy uke crk ldrh gSA vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds uke ckcj] ckiw] vetn] jbZl] fj;kt crk;kA tc eq>s eqyfteku mBk dj yk;s Fks rc os tks uke ys jgs Fks mlls eq>s mudk uke irk pykA----------^^ 15. The relevant portion of the cross-examination in chief of PW-1 reads as under:- ----------esjs HkkbZ us eq>s ;g t:j crk;k Fkk fd vfHk;qDr jbZl gekjs edku ds ihNs jgrk gS vU; eqyfteku esjs ekSgYys ds ugha gSaA eSa ugha crk ldrh fd vfHk;qDrx.k esa ls fdlus esjk eqWag nck;k Fkk rFkk fdlus esjs gkFk iSj idM+s FksA----- 16. Similarly the PW-2 Saeed Mansuri, brother of the prosecutrix PW-1, in his statement has specifically stated that earlier he had heard that accused appellants have abducted his sister but later on the relatives of co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shaifq have informed that only the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shaifq has abducted his sister. 17. The relevant portion of the examination in chief of PW-2 reads as under:- ---------igys eSaus lquk Fkk fd eqyfteku ys x;s gS fQj ckn esa vfHk;qDr fiUVw ds fj'rsnkjksa us gh vkdj dgk Fkk fd fiUVq gh esjh cgu dks vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk mBk dj ys x;k gSA-------- 18. From the above piece of evidence, it is clear that the accused appellants were not known to the prosecutrix before the incident and her brother has informed her that the accused appellant Raees Khan is residing behind their house and other appellants are not of their colony. 19. When the accused appellants were not known to the prosecutrix before the incident, it cannot be believed that she is aware about the names of the accused appellants. It is also to be noticed that she has specifically stated that she cannot elaborate that which of the accused appellants had clamped her mouth and whom of them caught hold of her hands and legs. 20. PW-2, brother of the prosecutrix, has stated that he has heard that the accused appellants have abducted his sister but later on the relatives of the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq has informed him that only the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq has abducted his sister and it can be gathered from this 21. that the knowledge of the PW-2 is heresay only. Except the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, no material is available against the accused appellants to connect them with the commission of offence. Shafiq has informed him that only the co-accused Pintu @ Mohd. Shafiq has abducted his sister and it can be gathered from this 21. that the knowledge of the PW-2 is heresay only. Except the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, no material is available against the accused appellants to connect them with the commission of offence. It is also to be noticed that though the prosecutrix in her complaint has specifically stated that she was abducted in a auto-rickshaw belonging to accused appellant- Amzad @ Mohammed Rafique but no such auto-rickshaw was recovered by the police during the course of investigation. 22. In view of the above noted facts, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient evidence is not available on record to connect the accused appellants with the commission of crime and the impugned judgments passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC is not sustainable. Consequently, these criminal appeals are allowed. The judgment dated 10.02.2014 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. All the accused appellants are on bail their bail bonds are discharged.