Kanchan Chakraborty, J.

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 16.04.2010 and 19.04.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 3(7) of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 8(1) of 2007 thereby convicting the appellant Nantu Chakraborty alias Gopal for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-with default clause.

The appellant herein along with two others were arrayed to face charge under Section 363/366/120B of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and, as a result, trial commenced against them.

The co-accused persons were, however, found not guilty and were acquitted from the charges. The present appellant was found guilty of offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, his conviction and sentence was recorded by the judgment, which is impugned in this appeal.

Succinctly, the case before the learned Trial Court was that on 01.11.2011, in between 10.30 to 11.00 a.m., Chaitali Kar, aged about 15 years, was kidnapped by the appellant while she was going to school. The learned Trial Court recorded evidence of as many as 12 witnesses including the victim Chaitali. Upon consideration of the evidence on record together with the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Court recorded the order of conviction and sentence.

The only question is to be considered in this appeal by this Court whether any ingredient of offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code was present while the alleged incident had taken place or not.

It is admitted position that the victim Chaitali was aged about 15 years at the relevant point of time. This is also admitted position that she was having love affairs with the appellant and that she, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mentioned clearly that she had written a letter to the appellant to the effect that in case the appellant fails to take her away on 1st November, 2011 and marry her, she would commit suicide. She, as the P.W. 8, stated categorically before the learned Trial Court that on 1st November, 2011 she and Nantu Chakraborty together went to the sister’s house of Nantu, their marriage had taken place in a temple and, thereafter, they stayed in the sister’s house of Nantu for a couple of weeks as husband and wife before she was taken away by her parents. She stated also in her examination-in-chief as P.W. 8 that she had no grievance against the appellant. All the witnesses examined before the learned Trial Court categorically stated that there was love affair between the victim and Nantu and their marriage had taken place. The P.W. 1, the mother of the victim, stated also in her cross-examination that she declared in writing that she would withdraw the case as the dispute was settled and she was arranging for marriage of Chaitali elsewhere and that she had no complain against the appellant any further. It also appears from the evidence of the P.W. 3 that the victim herself went away with the appellant. The P.W. 5, another witness, stated that he was aware of the fact of fleeing away of Chaitali and Nantu. The P.W. 7, the father of Chaitali, admitted that an undertaking was made in writing jointly by himself and his wife, (P.W. 1), which was marked Exbt. 4. The Exbt. 5, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, discloses clearly that Chaitali herself induced the appellant to take her away for marriage with a threatening that in case of failure to do so, she would commit suicide.

In the fact situation above, the appellant had to obey the direction of his fiance, i.e., the victim. They together went to the house of the sister of the appellant, performed their marriage in a temple and reside