Point of Law: Offence under Section 366 of IPC, 1860 relating to kidnapping/abducting the victim girl by inducing her to compel marriage with him. But the essential ingredients of the offences is that a person being an accused abducts victim and she may be compelled to marry a person of an accused.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011 and whereby convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC, 1860.

2. Whereas, this appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court and acquit the accused for the aforesaid offence amongst the grounds urged therein.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri.A.N.Radha Krishna for the appellant and so also, learned HCGP for the State.

4. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011.

5. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under :

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 10.11.2010 at around 7.00 p.m, PW.6 – Kum.Preethi who is the victim girl had been to the house of PW.4 – Smt.G.Selva who is aged about 75 years being tuition teacher and after attending tuition class in her house in the limits of Munisamappa Block, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru City while she was returning to the house that the accused alleged to having intention to marry her, abducted her from there and made her to confinement in house of one Venkatesh who is his friend. In pursuance of the act of the accused on filing the complaint by PW.5 – Lokesh as per Ex.P4, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P5 by PW.9 – Puttalakkaiah who is working as ASI in R.T.Nagar Police Station. Subsequent to registration of crime, PW.13 – Mahadevaswamy who is the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the case and during investigation, he drew mahazar as per Ex.P1 in the presence of PW.1 – Venkatesh and PW.3 – Muniraju and so also drew mahazar at Ex.P3 in the presence of PW.4 – Smt.G.Selva and PW.5 – Lokesh.

6. Subsequent to completion of investigation by PW.13 being the investigating officer and he had laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court and case has been committed by the committal Court by passing committal order by complying the provisions of Sections 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to the committal of the case by committal Court to the trial Court, case was registered against the accused in S.C.No.305/2011.

7. After committal of case by the committal Court that the trial Court heard on the part of prosecution and defence counsel relating to framing of charges and consequently framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 506, 366 and 342 of IPC and whereby the accused declined the charges leveled against him. Subsequent to framing of charges that the case was put up for trial and accordingly, prosecution has examined in all PWs.1 to 13 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to 9 and closed its side.

8. Subsequent to closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused were subjected to examination as under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating statement appeared against him, whereby the accused declined the truth of evidence of prosecution adduced so far. After recording 313 statement of the accused, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to completion of the evidence of the prosecution and on hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and defence counsel the trial Court having convinced by the evidence held conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC. It is this judgment which has been challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of his argument has taken me through the evidence of PW.1 – Venkatesh and PW.3 – Muniraju who are the panch witnesses secured by PW.13, being the investigating officer who drew the mahazar at Exs.P1 at the house of one Venkatesh where the accused alleged to have confined the victim girl – in his house. But the aforesaid PW.1 and PW.3