IMPORTANT POINT
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship – Consent of victim is immaterial and subsisting family bond cannot be excuse for escape of victim from parental custody at pretext or behest of pleasant and affable relationship or to justify act of removing a minor from custody of her legal guardian.

JUDGMENT

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.—This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 27.09.2002 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, 3rd Court, Burdwan in Session Case No.2 of 1996 convicted the appellant under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further a period of 4 months for commission of offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated the complainant in his written complaint dated 19.06.1993 addressed to the Officer in-charge of the Bhattar Police Station stated that on 19.06.93, his fifteen-year-old daughter was returning home from her school, Karjona Chati School at 2 pm with other students. On her way home, she passed a Maruti car parked on the road near Mirpara bridge. Rahul Haque, who was sitting inside the car with other men asked his daughter to stop and come inside the car. When she refused, they forced her inside and drove to Burdwan. He stated that Rahul Haque eloped with his daughter. The accused used to work with the complainant’s brother as a laborer and would often visit their house and was thus acquainted with the members of their family.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Bhatar Police Station Case No.49/93 dated 19.06.1993 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the appellant.

4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution cited 12 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. Considered the submissions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant as well as the State.

7. A circumspection of evidence of the prosecution witnesses revealed as follows:-

i. PW-1, the father of the victim being the de facto complainant had identified the copy of the complaint which was marked as Exhibit 1/1. In his testimony PW-1 stated the appellant to have been known to him 7/8 years prior to the date of occurrence who worked as a mason in constructing several houses in their village. The appellant had been regular visitor to his house and the relationship in respect of affection developed between the appellant and his family members. On one occasion the victim accompanied by the appellant had been to his house and was subsequently brought back by the younger brother of PW-1 namely Sabuj who had on another occasion stayed at the house of the appellant for two days. Prior to the incident of kidnapping the appellant had cordial relationship with the de facto complainant with a reliable impression. The appellant addressed PW-1 and his wife as his parents with immense respect who reciprocated similar affection towards the appellant. The daughters of PW-1 addressed the appellant as elder brother who considered them to be his sisters. Despite such indelible affinity the appellant forcibly took his daughter into a Maruti car to a certain distance from his house and thereafter diverted its route towards Burdwan. The victim was aged 13 to 14 years at the relevant time.

ii. PW-2 deposed to have been reported the incident of kidnapping by the daughter of PW-1 on her way to return from the school by the appellant. PW-2 disclosed on interrogation to the police whatever was reported to him by PW-1 and his wife.

iii. PW-3, the uncle of the victim reiterated the evidence of PW.-1.

iv. PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7, the students of Jhikardanga High School in unison deposed to have witnessed the victim boarding a Maruti Car which abruptly halted on the road on their way back from the school at about 2/2.30 p.m.

v. PW-8 the victim initially stated that she was not taken away by anyone. Subsequently, she stated at the insistence of the Learned Public Prosecutor to have been forcibly taken to the house of the appellant on her way back