In order to establish the offence of kidnapping under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that the accused person forcibly compelled or induced the victim to go from the place of her husband to his house with the intent to force her to have illicit intercourse.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, dated 31-1-57, convicting the appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur, of village Saikhore under Sec.366, I. P. C., and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. The facts of the prosecution case are short and simple. Badamia (P. W. 5), aged 17 years, was the legally wedded wife of Aghnu Rawani (P. W. 2) of mauza Bhurandiha. On 18-9-55 she disappeared from the house of her husband. A search was instituted by the members of her family, but to no effect. On the following morning Aghnu went to the house of his father-in-law, but she was not found there also. Then he lodged sangha at the police station. On 15-10. 55 Aghnu received information that his wife had been kept by the appellant in his house- Me lodged the first information report at the Saraiyahat police station on 16-10-55. The Assistant Sub Inspector (P. W. 19) went to the house of the petitioner and recovered her from his house. The prosecution case was that she had been forcibly carried away by the appellant from the lawful possession of her husband with the intent to force her to have illicit intercourse.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and denied in toto the allegations of the prosecution. He admitted that Badamia was living in his house and was recovered therefrom by the police. His defence is that she came to his house of her own accord and was working there as his maid-servant.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that Badamia Was the legally married wife of Aghnu, that she was not a minor under 18 years of age and that she was recovered from the house of the appellant He further found that the appellant did not kidnap or abduct her from the house of her husband, and that it was only when she was taken to his village that he kept her there.

5. Mr. S.R. Ghosal appearing for the appellant contended that there was no evidence at all to prove that he either forcibly compelled, or by any deceit, ful means induced, Badamia to go from the place of her husband to his house. In my opinion, the contention of Mr. Ghosal is well-found and must be accepted as correct." There is total lack of evidence in this case to prove that she was taken out of the lawful possession of her husband in the manner alleged by the prosecution. On the contrary, the evidence of some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution shows that she was working as maid-servant in the house of the appellant. She herself has supported the defence version. She has denied the story of abduction and has deposed that she was working as a maid-servant in the house of the appellant of her own accord. The wife and the mother of the appellant, P. Ws. 6 and 8, respectively have also deposed that she was working in their house as a maid-servant. The evidence of Aghnu (P. W. 2) and his father (P. W. 1) is only this that on 18-9-55 she was found missing from the house and was traceless. The evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 is to the same effect. P. W. 16 has deposed that he had seen the appellant with a girl in the house of Kailu Jha of Bankati about a year ago. P. W. 17 has stated that he had seen a girl in the house of Kailu Jha aforesaid. He, however, did not find the appellant there. The evidence of P. W. 18 is that he had seen the appellant with a girl in the house of Kailu Jha and that the girl was always kept in the house and was not allowed to come out. The other witnesses are formal witnesses, namely the police and search witnesses, except P. W. 15 whose evidence was not accepted by the learned Judge. It will be seen that the evidence of P. Ws. 16, 17 and 18 does not prove the prosecution case at all. It may be that the appellant was living with a girl in the house of Kailu Jha. The question is whether that girl was Badamia. No evidence has been led on this point. Even assuming that both Badamia and the appellant were living for sometime in the house of Kailu Jha, it do