Honble GOYAL, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.5.1999 in Sessions Case No.52/1998, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg District Bharatpur held the accused appellant Mohan guilty for offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC and sentenced him t one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default 15 days rigorous imprisonment, five years rigorous imprisonment and a sum of Rs.5000/- as fine, in default one month rigorous imprisonment and 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default one year rigorous imprisonment under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2). The case of the prosecution in brief is that PW-4 Lalchand lodged a written report Ex.P.3 at Police Station Kotwali, Deeg, at 10.15 a.m. on 11.2.1998 with the averments that his niece Urmila aged 16/18 years was kidnapped today by some unknown person and the informant has got suspicion upon Mohan. Formal F.I.R. No.65/1998 Ex.P.4 under Sections 363 & 366 was registered. After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. In due course, this case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg. The accused appellant was charged under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was examined as provided by Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution evidence but did not lead any evidence in defence. Learned Judge having heard learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused as stated hereinabove.

(3). I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment and record of the case.

(4). The first contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of the incident the victim was not below the age of 18 years and thus the offence under Section 363 IPC is not made out. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the Trial Judge on the point o the age of the victim. Section 359 IPC defines kidnapping. Kidnapping is of two kinds, kidnapping from lawful guardianship that whoever takes or antices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Section 363 provides punishment for kidnapping. Second offence against appellant is that of abduction punishable under Section 366 IPC. Section 362 IPC defines abduction that whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. According to Section 366 IPC, it is necessary to prove that the accused kidnapped or abducted any woman with intent that she may be compelled to marry any person against her will or she may be forced or seduced to illicit inter-course. The third offence is of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC.

(5). To appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, firstly, the age of the victim on the day of occurrence has to be determined. The learned Trial Judge arrived this conclusion that victim was below 18 years of age but she was not below the age of 16 years. The age of the victim is stated to be 16/18 years in the First Information Report itself which is Ex.P.3 and it was lodged at 10.15 a.m. on 11.2.1998 and the incident took place at 2 a.m. i.e. in the previous night. When confronted Ex.P.3 on the point of the age of the victim, PW4 Lalchand showed his ignorance as to how the age of the victim is stated to be 16/18 years in Ex.P.3, thus the informant failed to explain as to why he stated the age of the victim 16/18 years in Ex.P.3. Lalchand further stated in cross-examination that he does not know that the age of the victim was 18 years at th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document