IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant.

3. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 366 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.

4. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of eight witnesses and the defence cross-examined some witnesses to refute the charges. However, some witnesses were not cross-examined by the defence. On the incriminating evidence projected by the prosecution, through its witnesses several questions were asked to the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC. To the Question No. 2, the appellant has answered that he was not aware that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. He has admitted that the victim stayed in his rented house on her own volition for 4 days. He has admitted that the victim’s father recovered the victim from his house and the appellant admitted that the victim was a school going student at the time of the incident. The Court examined the Headmaster of No. 1 Pub Barsiral L P School, to ascertain if the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.

5. Heard learned counsel, Mr. U. Dutta, for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M.P. Goswami, for the respondent/State.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in his argument that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim stayed with the appellant for 4 days as the owner of the house where the victim was alleged to have resided with the appellant was not examined as witness.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the contrary has submitted that the evidence of the victim is consistent to her statement under Section 164 CrPC. The appellant has also admitted that the victim came to his house on her own volition and stayed there for 4 days. Sufficient reasons were ascribed by the learned trial Court and no interference of the Judgment and Order is warranted, as the Judgment and Order has been rightly passed by the learned trial Court.

8. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

9. The question that falls for consideration is that whether the learned trial Court has erred by convicting the appellant under Section 366 of the IPC. To decide the case in its proper perspective, the evidence is re-appreciated.

10. The FIR unfolds that a missing entry was registered as the victim’s father-‘Y’ informed the Police about his missing daughter and on an enquiry, it was unearthed that the appellant had kidnapped the minor victim-‘X’. Y deposed as PW-1 that in the month of May, 2008, one day, at around 02:00 pm, while he was proceeding towards his place of work, Haren Goswami informed him that his daughter eloped with a bo