- (1.)TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the impugned judgment. I have also scrutinised the evidence record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. As far as the present appeal is concerned it is to be delved into whether the present accused/appellants have been rightly found guilty for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC or not. The prosecutrix who has been examined as PW 1 has stated in her examination -in -chief that she accompanied Raghubir Singh, elder brother of her husband, as she was influenced by his statement that the land recorded in the name of her Late husband would be transferred to her. She has further stated that at Chhatarpur the registry could not be done on that day and was to be done on the next day. She has also stated that she was taken by the accused/appellants to Patha Dhakarwa where she stayed at Kishanlal's house where she was left behind by the accused/appellants on the pretext that they had got into some sort of trouble. When she made enquiries from Kishanlal and Sitaram, she came to learn that she had been sold by the accused/appellants for Rs. 4,000/ -. It is in her evidence that she had gone to Jhansi where she was taken to the Court. She has stated that she had given her thumb impression on certain documents as she was terrorised. She has deposed that she stayed with Kishanlal for six months as she was terror -striken. In her cross -examination the prosecutrix has admitted that she had not asked Raghubir Singh and Pyarelal to take her home. She has clearly accepted that in Ex.P -2 her photographs find place and that has been taken with Kishanlal. She has stated that she had travelled to Jhansi by a bus but she did not shout as she was scared of the accused persons. She has also stated that after getting down from the bus she did not seek help of any person. She has also admitted that she had been taken to the Court but was not able to remember whether her mouth was open or gaged. She has deposed that when she stayed at Patha Dhakarwa no woman of the village or any other villager was allowed to meet her.
PW 2, Ganpat Lodhi is the brother of the prosecutrix and is another important witness. He has deposed that after the matter was reported at the Police Station Raghubir Singh informed the Police that Saroj was at Patha Dhakarwa. In his cross -examination he has stated that after Saroj left with Raghubir Singh he had reported the matter after a fortnight at Bada Malhara Police Station. It is in his deposition that as he had some inkling that his sister was at Patha Dhakarwa he went there and met her at Kishanlal's place'. It is in his evidence that on first occasion she was unconscious and on the second occasion she had cried. It is also admitted by him that he had stayed for a day at Patha Dhakarwa. He has also clearly admitted that he was well treated by the accused Kishanlal, Sitaram and Phoolli and he had felt that the relationship had been established.

PW 4, Baijnath, in his examination -in -chief has stated that the women with whom Kishanlal had married she had stayed with him approximately for a period of 8 months and was leading a happy life and there was no restriction on her. This witness was declared hostile, by the prosecution. Similarly, PW 5 has also been declared hostile.

Held : On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence it becomes graphically clear that the prosecutrix stayed for considerable length of time at Kishanlal's place at Patha Dhakarwa and there is no evidence that she had ever complained to anyone. It also transpires that she had travelled to Jhansi and at Jhansi she had gone to the Court premises. It is also available from her evidence that she was photographed with Kishanlal. Her only explanation is that she was scared as she was threatened by the accused Kishanlal, Sitaram and Phoolli. Her evidence has to be appreciated alongwith the evidence of her brother Ganpat, PW 3. As has been stated above that Ganpat had gone to his sister's house on certain occasion and had spent some days with her in the house. From the scanning of the aforesaid evidence it is difficult to accept that PW 1 could not have complained to anyone about her being abducted by the accused/appellants and left behind at Patha Dhakarwa. It becomes highly incredible to her version that she was threatened and was in a state of fear for which she could not tell anyone including the fellow passenger in the bus in her way to Jhansi. That apart, a period of six months is a considerable length of time where a person allegedly abducted for the purpose of commission of an offence under section 366 of the IPC, could not have told any other person, agitated her plight and the grievance. Quite apart from the above, Ganpat had visited her sister and never tried to lodge an FIR at the nearby Police Station on any occasion. On the contrary, it is in his evidence that when he visited the Kishanlal's house he was well treated and felt as if a relationship had been established. Considering the totality of circumstances. chronology of, the sequence and the allegations in entirety and the normal human conduct, it can safely be concluded that the prosecutrix had acted out of her own volition. The learned Trial Judge has laboured hard to place reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix on the ground that she was a helpless woman and had clearly expressed about her plight under which she had to accede to the demands of the accused persons. It is also finding of the learned Trial Judge that in her entire stay in the house of Kishanlal she was not independent, and therefore, non -reporting of the matter to the Police Station cannot be taken as a circumstance against her. The aforesaid analysis of the learned Trial Judge can not be given the stamp of approval. On a considered scanning of the evidence on record I am of the view that the involvement of the accused/appellants in an offence punishable under section 366 of IPC cannot be accepted to have been established by the prosecution.

(2.)APPEAL allowed.