JUDGMENT

Despite the concurrent finings of the Courts below that the prosecutrix was taken out of the lawful guardianship of her mother, for which the appellants were accountable under Section 366, I. P. C. we have come to the view on going through the record and hearing learned counsel that the prosecutrix was an unreliable witness and no credence can be given to her word.

2. The two appellants were friends. They were young people at the time of the commission of the offence in the year 1984. Out of them, Shyam, A-1 wanted to marry the prosecutrix, Lalita. He made a proposal to her about two to three months prior to the occurrence which was spurned by her. On the day of the occurrence, she was incidentally at the common tap for washing clothes and to fetch water back home. The appellants riding their respective bicycles came at that time and at their asking she sat on the carrier of the bicycle of Suresh, A-2 and Shyam A-1 followed that bicycle as if escorting. The prosecutrix was taken to a room in the house of someone where she was made to perform a ritual signifying marriage between her and Shyam, A-1. The mother of the prosecutrix finding the girl missing reported the matter to