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.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Pandey, J.

None appears on behalf of the appellant. The present matter is pending consideration for near about 21 years.

2. It has been requested and Ms. Pooja Prasad (E No.1441/22D/1634/2019), learned counsel, has shown her willingness to assist as Amicus Curiae in the present matter.

3. Accordingly, learned counsel Ms. Pooja Prasad (E No.1441/22D/1634/2019) has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the present matter.

4. Heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

5. The name of informant and victim have not been disclosed in the present judgment to protect the prestige and dignity of the victim.

6. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Motihari in S.Tr. No. 189/1988 and 12/2002 whereby and whereunder appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) each and in default of payment of fine, appellant has to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of six months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

7. As per prosecution case, the informant gave a fardbayan before the Raxaul GRP on 02.01.1984 at about 1:00 P.M. is that when his daughter X having given food to him went to other room where his younger daughter, aged about 2 years, was sleeping. When he finished his meal, he heard the sound of weeping of his younger daughter Meera. He went there and found that the room was locked. He opened the room with the help of stone and found that a big wooden box was stolen away and his daughter X was traceless. On enquiry, he came to know that Satrughan Jha, Jagendra Kapar and Yogendra Sah had kidnapped his daughter and had also stolen away his wooden box in which the following articles were kept i.e. clothes, jewellery, other domestic items and cash. The informant rushed to Raxaul Station, making search where he found Satrughan Jha and Yogendra Kapar with his daughter and caught them. It is further alleged that the stolen watch was in hand of accused Satrughan Jha. After that the Raxaul G.R.P. arrested the accused Satrughan Jha and lodged the F.I.R.

8. On the basis of fardbeyan given by the informant, Raxaul G.R. P.S. Case No.1/84 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366 /379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code . Charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant and another under Sections 363 , 364, 366 and 379 of the I.P.C. and cognizance was also taken under aforesaid Sections and the case committed to court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Motihari for trial and disposal. On 08.04.2002 charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 363 , 366 and 379 I.P.C. Charges were read over and explained to the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to bring home guilt of accused person, prosecution has examined all together two witnesses as P.W. 1- Y (informant) / father of the victim and P.W. 2- X (victim).

10. Defence of the appellant as gathered from the line of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as fro