To convict under Section 368 IPC, the prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the kidnapping and intentional participation in concealing the victim.

JUDGMENT :

BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded in the judgment dated 09/02/2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 64/2015. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, with a default stipulation. In the present case, there were two accused persons, out of them, one accused is juvenile and hence, he was tried separately by the Juvenile Justice Board. The said fact is evident from para 3 of the impugned judgment.

1.1 The prosecutrix (PW-10) appeared at the Police Station in Jashpur and lodged a report stating that on 20/04/2015, at approximately 7:30 PM, she had attended a ‘Chhatti’ ceremony at the residence of one Fantus along with her friends. She remained at the venue until about 8:30 PM, after which she expressed her desire to return home. While her friend suggested waiting for some time, she decided to proceed alone. On her way, near a Mahua tree, she was intercepted by the JCL, who forcibly took hold of her hand, dragged her to a spot beneath a mango tree, and, despite her resistance, committed rape. Subsequently, the JCL took her to the residence of his friend, Pankaj (the appellant), where she was confined overnight.

The following morning, 21/04/2015, at around 7:30 AM, the prosecutrix awoke to find the door locked from outside. Around 10:30 AM, the JCL and the appellant returned but, upon realizing that the prosecutrix’s father was approaching, they again locked the house and absconded. At approximately 12:30 PM, her aunt (PW-4), her mother (PW-5), and other family members arrived, rescued her, and took her to the police station. Initially, out of fear, she did not disclose the incident, and the police handed her over to Childline, Jashpur, where she narrated the occurrence. She was subsequently sent to Bal Kalyan Grih, and upon further inquiry, disclosed the assault perpetrated by the JCL.

Acting on her statement, the Jashpur Police registered Crime No. 108/15 under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, along with provisions of the POCSO Act, against the JCL. The investigation involved obtaining the father’s consent, conducting a medical examination of the prosecutrix, recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC, preparing site maps, and verifying her age from school records. The JCL was arrested, and it was discovered that he had concealed the prosecutrix at the appellant’s residence following the assault. Accordingly, the appellant was also taken into custody under Section 368 IPC.

On being charged under Section 368 IPC, the appellant denied the allegations, asserting that he had been falsely implicated. The prosecution presented 18 witnesses to substantiate its case, and the appellant’s statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, reiterating his plea of innocence.

After careful appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence and imposed the sentence as outlined above. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.

2. (a) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant has been falsely