The conviction for abduction and intimidation was upheld despite the victim's lack of support for the prosecution, with the court emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in sexual offence cases.

JUDGMENT :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri Basavaling Nasi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. Appellant is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case No.40/2018 and sentenced as under:

“The accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three and half years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in-default S.I. for three months of the offence punishable under Section 366 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

Further, accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months of the offence punishable under Section 506 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

All the sentences and in default sentences shall run concurrently.

The accused is entitled for the benefit provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Interim order made in-respect of M.O.1 motor cycle bearing No.KA-33-U-8161 i.e., (Bajaj Pulsar 220 SF registration chassis No.ND2A13EY6GCH55256 and engine No.DKYCGH72405) is made absolute after appeal period is over.

Supply free copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith.”

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Gogi Police Station on 02.09.2017 at 06:30 p.m. by the father of the victim girl contending that on 31.08.2017 after completing the dinner, complainant along with his wife, victim girl and other family members of the complainant slept in their house situated at Nadihal village.

3.2. In the midnight, the victim girl woke up and opened the main door. At that juncture, the complainant asked why she is opening the main door. She informed that she is going outside to attend to a nature call. After few minutes, the complainant heard a screaming sound of the victim girl. Immediately, the complainant and his wife rushed to the main door but it was closed from the outside. Thereafter, they rushed towards the window and noticed that the accused forcibly abducting the victim girl on his motorcycle. He opened door by using the force and tried to chase the accused, but it was in vain.

3.3. Soon thereafter, they rushed to the house of the accused. They noticed that the house was locked. Immediately, the complainant and his friend Ambalappa searched for the victim girl but were not able to trace her. They also kept the search next day in and around the village and the places of acquaintance; but all their efforts were in vain and ultimately they lodged the complaint.

3.4. After the case was registered, the police investigated the matter. They were able to trace the victim girl on 08.09.2017 and on inquiry, police invoked the provisions of Sections 376 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, ‘IPC’) along with Sections 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’).

4. After thorough investigation, police filed chargesheet. The presence of the accused was secured as he was on bail. After due trial, the learned Trial Judge, analyzed the material evidence cumulatively and convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 366 and 506 of IPC, but acquitted for the remaining offences.

5. The State for the reasons best known to it, did not challenge the acquittal of the accused for the offences under the provisions of the POCSO Act and as such that become final.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offences under Sections 366 and 506 of IPC, the accused has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

That the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Judge is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Hence th