Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In the present case, charge was framed against the accused Rajeev in respect of offence U/s. 363 IPC with the allegations that on 05.03.2007 at about 12.00 Noon he kidnapped the prosecutrix out of the keeping of lawful guardian of the complainant and without his consent. Charge was also framed against the accused in respect of offence U/s. 366 IPC with the allegations that he kidnapped the daughter of complainant with such intention that prosecutrix will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with him. Charge was also framed against the accused in respect of offences U/s. 365/376 IPC with the allegations that he abducted the prosecutrix with intend to cause her to be secretly and wrongfully confined at Pauri Garhwal, Uttranchal and thereafter committed rape upon her repeatedly from 06.03.2007 to 31.03.2007. Accused pleaded not guilty of the said charges and claimed trial.

17. Now, I come to Section 366 IPC. To prove the commission of offence U/s. 366 IPC the following ingredients must be fulfilled. (1) There should be kidnapping or abduction of any woman (2) such kidnapping or abduction should be with intent that victim may be compelled to marry any person against her will or the kidnapping or abduction of any woman should be with such intention or knowledge that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

18. In the present case, PW-10 prosecutrix has deposed that she herself had initiated the proposal of marriage to the accused and went with him out of her free will. In view of this statement, it can not be said that accused kidnapped the prosecutrix with such intention that she may be compelled to marry him against her will or that may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. As already discussed that no offence of kidnapped has been committed by the accused. Accordingly, accused is also acquitted of the offence U/s. 366 IPC as necessary ingredients of offence U/s. 366 IPC are missing in the present case.