Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
3. All the named accused were supplied with the copies of charge sheet along with annexed documents in compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 8.2.2007 committed the case to the court of Sessions and thereafter assigned to this court for trial in accordance with law.
4. Vide order dated 19.5.2007, charge for the offence punishable u/s 363/366/376 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The named co-accused Sanjay, Daulatram, Anita and Subhas were discharged for the offences u/s 363/368/376/506/34 IPC vide order dated 19.5.2007.
To bring home the guilt of the accused under S.366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the prosecutrix or compelled her by force to go from any place; that such inducement was by deceitful means; that such kidnapping or abduction took place with the intent that the prosecutrix may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the prosecutrix may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction or kidnapping. The essential ingredients of the offence under S.366 IPC are as follows:
21. To constitute offence u/s 366 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused kidnap any woman or compelled her by force to go from any place. A woman should be kidnapped or abducted with the intention that the woman may be seduced to illicit intercourse or that the accused knew it to be likely that the woman may be seduced to illicit intercourse or that woman would be compelled to marry any person against her own will. The defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence u /s 366 IPC as there is nothing in the testimony of PW-1 prosecutrix that she was kidnapped by the accused with a view to marry her. The defence counsel relied upon Kuldeep K. Mahato V State of Bihar, 1998 (5) SC 395. In the said case it was observed that there was no indication in statement of prosecutrix that she was kidnapped with intention to marry against her will or in order that she may be forced to illicit intercourse, as such, ingredients of Section 366 are not proved. Conviction u/s 366 IPC was set aside. The CPP argued that as per the testimony of PW-1 prosecutrix it is reflected that she was taken away by the accused out of the lawful guardianship of PW-2 Meera Devi to Aligarh where he had committed sexual intercourse with her without consent and wishes.
7. After considering, particularly the facts pertaining to the socio-
economic condition of the convict, the convict is sentenced to RI of two years along with fine of Rs.2000/- in default one month SI for offence u/s 363 IPC; and RI for a period of 3 years along with fine of Rs.3000/- in default 2 months SI for the offence punishable u/s 366 IPC; and RI for 3 years along with fine of Rs.3000/- in default 2 months SI for offence punishable u/s 376 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the convict. Case property is confiscated to the State. The Committal warrant be issued against the convict. A copy of the judgment along with order on sentence be supplied to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.