The evidentiary value of documents, behavior of the victim, and lack of evidence of specific criminal intent were crucial in determining the appellant's guilt.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 24/6/2011 passed in S.C. No. 59/2007 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court, Kollegal, convicting the appellant for the offence under Ss. 363, 366 and 342 of IPC and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00 with default sentence for offence under Sec. 363 ; further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.10, 000.00 with default sentence for offence under Sec. 366 IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs.1, 000.00 with default sentence for offence under Sec. 342 IPC.

2. Factual matrix of the case is, that on 5/1/2007 at about 01.30 pm the appellant - accused kidnapped P.W.2 victim girl near St. Thomas Rural High School of Thomiyarapalya with an intention to marry her, knowing fully well that she was minor. The appellant - accused had threatened her that if she did not marry him, he will kill her and he wrongfully kept her in his relative's (P.W.7) house and at Hameediya Lodge at Kodaicanal. P.W.1 father of victim girl-P.W.2 filed complaint as per Ex.P.1 registered in crime No. 3/2007 of Hanur Police Station for the offence under Sec. 363 IPC against appellant - accused. The Investigating Officer, after completing investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant - accused for the offence under Ss. 363, 366, 342 and 506 IPC. JMFC had taken cognizance and committed the case to the Sessions Court.

3. The Sessions Court framed charge against the appellant - accused for the offence under Ss. 366, 506, 342 and 363 IPC. Appellant - accused has denied the charges leveled against him. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and material object as M.O.1, i.e., Motorcycle. The statement of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

4. After hearing arguments on both sides, the trial Court framed points for consideration and convicted the appellant - accused for the offence under Ss. 363, 366 and 342 of IPC. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged by the appellant - accused in this appeal.

5. Heard the Amicus Curiae for the appellant - accused and learned HCGP for the respondent - State.

6. Learned counsel for appellant - accused argues that the age of the victim - P.W.2 has not been established by proper evidence. There is a discrepancy in her date of birth mentioned in Ex.P.7 and in her evidence. He contends that Ex.P.7 is not sufficient to establish the age of P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated her date of birth as 1/3/1990 whereas her birth date is mentioned as 1/3/1991 in Ex.P.7. Learned counsel for appellant - accused by referring to the entire deposition of P.W.2 argued that P.W.2 had sufficient opportunity to make a hue and cry and run away from the clutches of appellant - accused as she stayed nearly for one month from 5/1/2007 to 6/2/2007. The very act of not making any efforts by P.W.2 to escape itself goes to show that she is not kidnapped by the appellant - accused. The case of the prosecution is silent regarding the whereabouts of the appellant - accused and the victim between 28/1/2007 to 4/2/2007. There is no investigation in that regard. The appellant - accused was not knowing that P.W.1 - father of P.W.2 was going to Mysuru or his travel plan so as to falsely say to P.W.2 that her father has met with an accident and he is in a hospital. The victim girl, after this appellant - accused taking her on his bike on the pretext that her father met with an accident and is admitted in a hospital, within 20 to 22 minutes as the bike proceeded in a different route, but she continued to travel with him on his bike to the house of P.W.7 at Dindgal. P.W.2 has not told her kidnap by appellant - accused to P.W.7 or to his family members even though she stayed in their h