Sunder Lal, J.
1. This is an appeal by two persons, Karan Singh and Bhullan. The first of these has been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; the second, namely Bhullan, has been convicted under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo a similar term of imprisonment.
2. The facts of the case appear to be as follows: Musammat Saliman is a girl of dhobi caste aged about twelve years. She was married to one Sukka, in whose house he was living. She is a Musalman dhobi. She appears to have been dissatisfied with her mother-in-law and intended to leave her husband's house in village Jarelia for that of her maternal uncle which was in village Jufri about four kos from her husband's village. She left her husband's house and was proceeding alone in the direction of the village Jufri. On the way she met with the accused Karan Singh and Seria. The latter enquired of her as to whither she was going and on being told that she intended to go towards village Jufri where her maternal uncle was living, informed her that they, were also going in the same direction and that she might accompany them. Musammat Saliman then proceeded in their company and was taken by them to Aligarh. On their way to Aligarh they proposed to her a marriage with some one with whom she might live more comfortably. She was kept at Aligarh for two days and thence taken to a village called Lareria. Here she was told to give herself out as a Jat woman. She was supplied with new clothing. Her nose was bored and a black stuff was put in the holes in the ears so that she might not appear to be a Muhammadan girl. The girl, however, was more innocent than these men deemed her to be, because she told some women of the village that she was a dhobi (Musalman) by caste. Karan Singh and Seria thereupon bolted from this village. They took the girl to a village called Bahadurpore where the accused Bhullan, a brother of Karan Singh, was living (Bhullan and Karan Singh, it is said, are sons of the same mother but by different fathers). Here the party lived in the house of Bhullan. The girl was represented to be the daughter of their maternal uncle. She was said to have recently lost her husband and they were anxious to re-marry her to somebody. (The word used in the evidence is baithana,' which is something like karao among the Jats). The price demanded for giving her away in marriage was Rs. 200. They were, however, offered Rs. 60 on condition that they should have the girl's whereabouts certified by the Police. This condition, however, they declined to accept. Various persons, however, who were interested in the marriage sent village women to enquire about the girl, and the girl is said to have told them that she was a daughter of a Sukka (waterman). Thereupon Karan Singh and Seria left that village, leaving the girl in the charge of Bhullan. Bhullan, however, with the advice of the mukhia (village headman) and other residents of the village took her to the thana and reported what had happened. The girl was kept for a month at Bhullan's house so long as the thanadar was making an enquiry. Karan Singh has been on the above facts convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Bhullan has been convicted under Section 868. There can be no doubt as to the propriety of the conviction of Karan Singh. The girl, no doubt, left of her own accord the custody of her husband and intended to go and live with her maternal uncle for sometime. She, however, did not cease to be under the guardianship of her lawful guardian. Karan Singh induced her to go with him or rather induced her to accompany him and deceitfully took her to Aligarh. He was guilty of the offence of kidnapping. The case against him is clearly governed by l^e principle of the decision in Emperor v. Jetha Nathoc 6 Bom. L.r. 785 : 1 Cr. L.j. 931.
3. As regards Bhullan there is no evidence that he confined or concealed the girl. The girl was living as a free agent in his house. The village people were allowed to have free access to her. I cannot say that he is guilty of wrongfully confining or concealing the girl. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has no application. Bhullan was no party to the conspiracy. I think his conviction under Section 368 cannot be sustained. I, therefore, affirm the conviction and sentence passed on Karan Singh and dismiss his appeal. I allow the appeal of Bhullan, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him by the Court below and direct that he be released at once.