JUDGMENT

Srivastava, J - This is an appeal by Rameshwar and Ram Bodh who have been convicted under Section 366, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. The case for the prosecution is that on the morning of 25th January 1932, Ram Prasad sent his daughter Saraswati to fetch his servant, Ram Harakh who had not turned up that morning. She was stopped on the way by the three accused who carried lathis. Being frightened she ran up to the house of Sheo Harakh. As she crossed the threshold of Sheo Harakh's house, Rameshwar caught hold of her hand. On her shouting that Rameshwar had caught hold of her hand, Sheo Harakh came and caught hold of the other hand. Thereupon Rameshwar pointed his lathi towards Sheo Harakh and threatened to beat him. Sheo Harakh then let go her hand and Rameshwar dragged the girl to some distance to a banian tree. Ram Bodh was present and standing at the door of Sheo Harakh's house when this affair took place. Ram Bodh also went with Rameshwar when the latter left the house, taking Saraswati with him. Some of the other accused are said to have taken over the girl from Rameshwar under the banian tree. They were joined by some other accused at some distance. "Ultimately the girl was taken to the house of Chotay Lal and she was married there to him the same evening.

2. Nine accused persons who are said to have been concerned in this affair were prosecuted for an offence under Section 366, I.P.C. They all pleaded not guilty. Their defence was that Ram Prasad gave the girl in marriage to Chotay Lal and the marriage took place on the evening of 24th January 1932. Ram Prasad was paid Rs. 200 before the marriage and was promised a sum of Rs. 100 to be paid to him on the following day. As Ram Prasad could not be paid this sum of Rs. 100 as promised, it led to an exchange of abusive language between Ram Prasad and Ram Sarup, the uncle of Chotey Lal. This was alleged to be the reason for Ram Prasad making a false report of kidnapping at the police station on 25th January. The other accused said that they had joined the wedding and had been falsely implicated in order to disable them from appearing as witnesses. The principal witnesses for the prosecution were Saraswati, P.W. 2, Sheo Harakh P.W. 3, Ram Charan, P.W. 4, Babu Ram, P.W. 5 and Salik Ram, P.W. 6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has carefully scrutinised the evidence of these witnesses and disbelieved most of it. He has rejected the contention of the prosecution of there having been a conspiracy to kidnap the girl. He has remarked that Saraswati's statement has to be read with very great caution because it appeared to him that she had been tutored. He has also disbelieved the evidence of Sheo Harakh and the other witnesses so far as they tried to make out a charge of kidnapping against seven of the accused. He has however believed the statement of Saraswati and Sheo Harakh as regards the part alleged to have been played by Eameshwar and Ram Bodh in this affair. In the result he has acquitted seven of the accused and convicted and sentenced the two appellants as stated above. The main contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge having rejected practically the whole of the prosecution evidence and disbelieved the best part of the prosecution story is wrong in believing Saraswati and Sheo Harakh about Eameshwar having caught hold of Saraswati's hand and dragged her away from Sheo Harakh's house. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has made a careful analysis of the prosecution evidence. He has given due consideration to everything that could be said in favour of the defence. Yet in spite of giving the defence the benefit of everything that could be urged in their favour, he has come to the conclusion that the statements of Saraswati and Sheo Harakh in so far as they implicate the two appellants are correct and worthy of credit. The learned Judge has had the benefit of seeing