Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Against the same judgment, Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2006 has also been preferred by the informant which was admitted for hearing along with Cr. Appeal No. 327 of 2006. In the Criminal Revision, there is prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 to the extent of acquittal of opposite party nos. 2 - 8 and acquittal of present appellants for the offence under Section 366A and 120B of the I.P.C. which has been proved beyond doubt.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 28.12.1997 at about Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 327 of 2006 Page | 2 06:00 PM informant's daughter aged about 15 years (victim girl) went to discharge nature's call outside the house, but she did not return till 07:00 PM, then his father Haribol Mahto (Informant) and other family members started searching her in the neighbourhood. The present appellants used to visit his daughter frequently and talk her at the time of watching television in his house and on the basis of suspicion present appellants and other family members namely Diwakar Das, Sibiya Devi, Baldeo Rai, Kanti Devi and Nirmal Pujhar were made accused in the F.I.R. which was registered for the offence under Sections 363, 366A and 120B of the I.P.C.

12. From the provision of Section 366A of the I.P.C., it emerges that in order to bring home the charge for the offence under Section 366A, the prosecution is required to prove through cogent and reliable evidence that a victim girl under the age of 18 years was induced to go from one place to another with the intention that such girl may be forced or seduced to have illicit intercourse with another person.

13. In the instant case, the evidence available on record as dealt above does not reveal any such intention of the accused/appellants. The factum of illicit intercourse either by the accused persons or by any other person has also not been proved by the victim girl. The deposition of victim girl (P.W. 11) gives clear shape and true picture as regards the incident which happened. The main motto of both of them was to solemnize marriage with the victim girl.

14. Thus, the essence for the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. Therefore, the conviction for the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. is not warranted under law Hence, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the I.P.C.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 327 of 2006 Page | 14

15. So far, the acquittal of the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2006 under Section 120B of the I.P.C. is concerned. None of the witnesses in their evidences has discussed above proved that there was a prior agreement meeting of minds amongst the accused for commission of offence as proved. Hence, the trial court has rightly acquitted from the charges under Section 120B of the I.P.C. However, it cannot be ignored from consideration at this juncture, that on the date of occurrence, the victim girl was minor below the age of 18 years and she was taken away by the accused/appellants without consent of her guardian. In the instant case, the consent of the victim has no relevance at all in legal perspective. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 363 of the I.P.C. is well proved in this case against the appellant which involve an act of kidnapping of any person from the lawful guardianship as defined under Section 361 of the I.P.C., where it is stated that whoever taken or enticed any minor under the age of 16 years, if a male or under 18 years if a female or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian is stated to kidnapping such person.