Back
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Maina Saikia S/o Shri Kanti Saikia – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in connection with Sessions Case No. 118 (NL)/2011 arising out of GR Case No. 1296/2010. The appellant Sri Maina Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as the appellant or accused) is aggrieved by the judgment and order as he has been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with default stipulation.
2. The genesis of the case was that on 10.11.2011 the appellant kidnapped the minor victim X, who was alone at home. The victim’s mother then lodged an FIR with the police at Bihupuria Police Station, which was registered as Bihupuria Police Station Case No. 325/2011 under Section 366 (A) of IPC. The Investigating Officer (IO for short) embarked upon the investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The victim was forwarded to the Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) and also she
The court ruled that voluntary consent negates the charge of kidnapping under IPC Section 363.
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 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 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 conviction for rape was upheld based on consistent victim testimony, while the conviction for kidnapping was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent.
(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 ....
An offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by d....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the victim's age and consent are crucial factors in determining the offense of rape, and the evidence and testimonies should be considered ....
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
