V.G. Palshikar, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved by the order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur on 4.9.1984 convicting the accused appellants under section 455 IPC, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me.
(2.) With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. From the reappreciation of the evidence, the following facts which cannot be disputed are disclosed: (1) That the first information report has been lodged four days after the alleged incident has taken place. (2) That the learned Sessions Judge has accepted, and rightly, that arrangements for residence of the complainant and her son were made in Keerti Hotel by the accused Narendra Singh. (3) That for the period between 3.8.1978 to 23.9.1978, two rooms of the Pratap Country Inn were in, possession of the complainant and the Hotel Pratap Inn belonging to accused Narendra Singh.
(3.) It is undisputedly that all the articles belonging to the complainant removed from the rooms at Tittardi House were shifted to Keerti Hotel in Udaipur. In the face of these findings, no conviction under section 455 IPC is permissible.;