JUDGMENT

Srivastava, J - This is an appeal by Ram Sagar and eight others who have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich under Sections 452 and 366, I.P.C. Ram Sagar has been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and the remaining appellants to three years' rigorous imprisonment under each of these sections. The sentences are to run concurrently. The case for the prosecution which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held satisfactorily proved is that on the evening of 24th April, while Badri was cooking his meal inside his house, all the nine appellants entered the house, seized Badri and his minor daughter Chandrakala, aged 10 years who was sitting by him, dragged them into the courtyard and forcibly took them to the house of Ram Sagar, appellant 1, beating Badri with kicks and fists all along the way. Gulzar, a nephew of Badri, and some others, came to the place on hearing the cries of Badri. They remonstrated with the appellants but without any avail. At the house of Ram

2. Sagar, Badri was asked to perform the feet worship ceremony and to give his daughter in marriage to Ram Sagar, but he refused to do so. Badri was then turned out of the house but the girl was detained there. When the appellants paid no heed to the remonstrances of Gulzar and others, Gulzar ran to the Pyagpur police station which is at a distance of about six miles from the village and reported the occurrence to the station officer at about 10 p. m. The station officer at once proceeded to the village and reached there at about midnight. Immediately on reaching there he made a search of the house of Ram Sagar but the girl could not be found. She was recovered the next evening from the house of Sukhlal, P.W. 4. (After discussing evidence, the judgment proceeded). The learned Counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that they are partizan witnesses and their evidence is not entitled to any credit.

3. He has also laid stress on the fact that no independent witnesses have been examined. Having given my careful consideration to the minute criticizm made by the appellants' learned Counsel in respect of the evidence of these witnesses, I find myself unable to disagree with the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge about the general credibility of the prosecution evidence. I feel satisfied that the prosecution version of the case is substantially true. It is strongly supported by the probabilities and circumstances of the case. After further discussing evidence, the judgment proceeded.) Having given my careful consideration to the case. I can see no sufficient grounds to disagree with tbe finding of the lower Court that the prosecution case is in the main true and should be accepted. However I am not specified that the charge has been brought home against all the accused. According to the prosecution evidence, when the appellants went to Badri's house, Raja Ram and Kariya caught hold of Badri and Ram Sagar and Samai Din caught hold of Chandrakala.

4. The learned Assistant Government Advocate admitted that he was unable to point to any evidence showing any particular part which the remaining five appellants might have taken in the transaction. There is not a word to show that they joined the four persons named above either in dragging Badri and Chandrakala out of the house or in beating Badri or in exercising any pressure on Badri and Chandrakala to perform the marriage. The most that can be said against them is that they were spectators of the occurrence and went to the house of Badri with the four persons named above. No particular part having been assigned to these five appellants in the whole of this affair, it is well possible that they have been named only with a view to rope in all the members of the family of Ram Sagar. I am therefore of opinion that the five appellants, Dina Nath, Onkar Nath, Kedar Nath Tirbhawan Dat and Kharbhan should be given the benefit of doubt. The result therefore i