Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR, J.
Zafar Imam @ Md. Zafar Imam Son Of Md. Jainul Abdin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.395 of 2006
Decided on : 01-04-2024
KIDNAPPING - CONVICTION UNDER IPC - Section 366A IPC - The court discussed Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to the kidnapping of a minor girl with the intent to compel her to marry or to have illicit intercourse. The court emphasized the necessity of proving the essential ingredients of the offense, including the inducement and the minor's age. The absence of the victim's testimony and the lack of corroborative evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, influencing the court's decision to acquit the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping a 14-year-old girl under Section 366A IPC. The informant, the girl's father, reported that the appellant had taken his daughter from their home. After a failed marriage proposal, the informant filed a complaint leading to the appellant's arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the appellant. Key witnesses, including the victim, were not examined, and the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the essential elements of kidnapping under Section 366A IPC, including the age of the victim and the circumstances of her alleged abduction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's failure to examine the victim and the investigating officer, along with the lack of documentary evidence regarding the victim's age, created reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt. The absence of direct evidence of the kidnapping further weakened the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt.
JUDGMENT :
SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR, J.
Heard Ms. Sarandha Suman, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Z. Hoda, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 19th day of May, 2006 and order of sentence dated 20th day of May, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC No. IV Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 52/2005 and 190/1999 arising out of Sherghaty P.S. Case No. 141 of 1991, whereby and whereunder appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine amount, further to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
3. Informant Md. Jahiruddin, father of the victim girl, gave a complaint petition in the court of learned CJM, Gaya, and the matter was sent to police station u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was registered as Sherghati P.S. Case No. 141 of 1991.
4. As per complaint petition, victim girl who is daughter of the complainant was 14 years at the time of occurrence. Recapitulating the prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.07.1991, while the victim girl was sleeping at her house, appellant had kidnapped her at night. On next morning, mother of the victim girl found her missing from the house. A search was made thereafter. On getting information about kidnapping of his daughter, complainant returned to his village for inquiring the matter. It is further stated that after three days, on 26.07.1991 accused Zafar Imam returned to his village with the victim girl/daughter of the complainant. According to informant, victim girl had taken away ornaments of Rs. 35,000/-with her. It is further alleged that instead of sending the victim girl to her house, all accused persons forcefully confined her to their house. Thereafter, mother of the victim girl approached respectable persons of the village for Panchyati and then her daughter was produced before her. In presence of Puncehs, accused Zafar Imam admitted that he had kidnapped the victim girl with all her ornaments. Panchayati has come to the conclusion with a proposal of marriage of the victim girl with the appellant Zafar Imam and the same was accepted by both the parties. Marriage was scheduled to be held on 4.8.1991 and on that day victim girl expressed her will and accepted the proposal of Nikah with Zafar Imam in presence of Kazi but it was found that at the time of Nikah, accused/appellant had fled away stealthy to avoid marriage in connivance and collusion with other accused persons. Thereafter Punches adviced the complainant/informant to take legal steps and thereafter father of the victim filed a complaint petition in the court of learned CJM, Gaya on 23.08.1991.
5. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted chargesheet against the appellant and others under Sections 120(B), 354, 406 and 366(A) of the Indian penal Code and thereafter cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned for trial. The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal.
6. Charges were framed u/s 120(B), 366/A, 354 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Trial court has explained the charges to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons, altogether eight witness were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1, Jarina Khatoon (mother of the victim girl), P.W.-2 Brijnandan Prasad (formal witness), P.W.-3 B.C. Yadav (independent witness) P.W.-4 Md. Zahiruddin (informant. Father of the victim girl), P.W.-5 Nabi Hussain (vo-villager), P.W.-6 Maulana Gulam Gaur (kaaji), P.W.-7 S. Ali (co-villager) P.W.-8 Jahid Hussain (covillager). Victim girl and Investigating Officer of the were not examined by the prosecution.
8. P.W. 1 Jarina Khatoon is the mother of the
The prosecution must prove all essential elements of the offense under Section 366A IPC beyond a reasonable doubt, including the victim's age and the circumstances of the alleged kidnapping.
The conviction for rape was upheld based on consistent victim testimony, while the conviction for kidnapping was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and consistent evidence to establish the elements of a criminal offense, particularly regarding the age of the victim ....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 363 but exonerated the petitioner under Section 376 due to lack of forced sexual intercourse and credible evidence regarding victim's age and consent.
The consent of the minor is immaterial in cases of kidnapping from lawful guardianship, and persuasion by the accused creating willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of t....
Prosecution must conclusively prove the victim's age and the accused's wrongful conduct to establish kidnapping or abduction under IPC sections 363 and 366.
The main legal point established is the requirement for the victim's testimony to inspire confidence and be trustworthy in cases of sexual assault, and the need for corroborating evidence to affirm c....
In criminal cases, the possibility of false implication necessitates the acceptance of the accused's innocence when evidence is inconclusive.
The Court clarified the distinction between kidnapping and abduction, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent and compulsion in the offense.
The prosecution must prove the victim's age and the circumstances of the alleged kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in evidence warrant the benefit of doubt to the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
