Back
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Bipul Das (in Jail), S/o. Rajen Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, in Sessions Case No. 186 (K)/2010, convicting and sentencing Bipul Das (hereinafter, the appellant), under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. The genesis of the case was that on 19.05.2008, at about 10:00 am, the minor victim-‘X’ was proceeding towards her school when Bipul Das forcibly pushed her into a Maruti Van and drove away. He confined her in his friend Raju’s house for about 5 (five) days. The informant lodged an FIR with the Police at Sonapur Police Station about the confinement of the victim in an area under Beltola. The FIR was then registered as Sonapur PS Case No. 1/2008, under Section 366 of the IPC and the Investigating Officer (IO, in short) embarked upon the investigation. The victim was recovered and was forwarded for medical examination. The victim was also forwarded to the Magistrate to get her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short). After com
The court acquitted the appellant of kidnapping charges due to inconsistencies in the victim's statements and lack of evidence for coercion, emphasizing the principle of reasonable doubt.
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.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused kidnapped the victim with the intent to compel her to marry or to seduce her to illicit intercourse, and mere allegations without....
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 determination of the victim's age is crucial in cases of sexual offences, and the court emphasized the importance of following the procedure for determining the age of a juvenile under the Juveni....
The court ruled that voluntary consent negates the charge of kidnapping under IPC Section 363.
(1) Mere recovery of a child from some other person ipso facto does not to prove offence under Section 363, IPC – Prosecution has to prove that accused either took or enticed minor out of keeping of ....
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 conviction for rape was upheld based on consistent victim testimony, while the conviction for kidnapping was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent.
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
