IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Kidnapping – All kidnappings are confinement but not all confinements are kidnapping.
(2) Kidnapping of girl by alluring her with false promise of marriage – Friendship as well as adolescent’s consensual relationship are not protected by law and law presumes culpable mental state, where all burden shifts on young adult to prove that they had not committed any crime.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The appeals emanate from a common judgment and order, thus both the appeals were heard together.

1.1. Criminal Appeal No.446 of 2006 is filed by the appellant-original accused No.1-Rohan Kiritbhai Desai, while Criminal Appeal No.500 of 2006 is by the appellant-original accused No.2-Amit Devendrakumar Parmar. The above Appeals challenge the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2006 passed by the Fast Track Court No.1, Gandhinagar in Special Atrocity Case No.18 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the Atrocity Act’).

1.2. For the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC, both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, were ordered to undergo further imprisonment of one month.

1.3. For the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC, both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, were sentenced to undergo further imprisonment of one month.

1.4. For the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocity Act, the sentence for both the accused was to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with the default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month.

2. The facts of the case which surfaces on record is that on 23.03.2004 between 12.00–15.00 hours from near Gandhinagar ‘Ch’ Circle Bus Stand, both the accused kidnapped the daughter of the complainant by alluring her with a false promise of marriage with accused No.2 and thereby took her away from the legal guardianship of her father. Thereafter, at Gandhinagar Guest House and at different places at Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat and Mumbai, without the victim’s consent and will, on the pretext of marriage with accused No.2, till 09.04.2004, the accused No.1 and 2 in collaboration with each other, had committed offences under the referred Sections.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant-accused Mr. Vijay Patel in Criminal Appeal No.446 of 2006 submitted that the decision passed by the learned Fast Track Court is contrary to the facts of the case and the evidence on record. It is submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in holding the appellant/s guilty for the offences even though the evidence on record does not support the case of the prosecution. The learned Judge has also committed an error in interpreting the provisions of Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and the provision of the Atrocity Act. The learned Judge has not appreciated the fact from the documentary evidence that the victim was an adult on the day of the incident and she had left her father’s house on her own volition. Further, the appellant has not induced or lured the victim to leave her father’s house and has not at all committed the alleged offence. The learned Judge has not properly appreciated the documentary evidence as regards the date of birth of the victim. It is also submitted that the victim on her own had stayed with accused. It is further submitted that had the victim been induced to leave her father’s house under some pressure or temptation, she would have surely made a complaint to that effect during the period of 15 days. It transpires that the victim had not made a phone call to her father or mother or to any of her friends or relatives to make any complaint. It is further submitted that no ingredients exist for invoking the provisions of the Atrocities Act, and the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel referring to the deposition of the witnesses submitted that the evidence discloses that the victim’s brother had beaten her and for that purpose,