The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove specific intent and actions related to the offenses under Section 366-A and Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code, and the court's emphasis on credibility and logic in evaluating the evidence.

In Sessions Case no. 11 of 2004 on the file of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-2, Godda, two persons namely Surnedra Mandal and Mostt. Patri Devi were placed on trial to answer the charges under Sections 366-A, 372 and 376/34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused Surendra Mandal was acquitted of the charges by the trial court and the remaining one accused Mostt. Patri was convicted under Section 366-A and 372 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 366-A as well as 372 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Five Hundred) on each count and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for both sections. However, the sentences awarded were directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal is that on the basis of the information given by Siya Devi before Officer-in-Charge Maharama Police Station, a formal F.I.R. was registered on 26.10.2003 on the allegation that her daughter Sukhiya Devi aged about 12 years had gone to her maternal grandfather’s house at village Bhagiya on 05.10.2003. On 08.10.2003, the husband of Sukhiya Devi also came there to meet her and requested the maternal grandfather-in-law to allow Sukhiya to go to her Sasural but Sukhiya was not ready and when the husband pressurized her, Sukhiya Devi took shelter in the neighbouring house of Lilo Mandal @ Lilua at about 12.00 a.m. It is also alleged that Lilo Mandal along with his mother Patri Devi, Lakshman Mandal, elder brother Sanatan Mandal and younger brother Surendra Mandal induced Sukhiya and thereafter Lilo Mandal took her to Simanpura and kept her in the house of Lakshman Mandal. When her father enquired from Patri Devi, she denied that Sukhiya ever came to her house. Even after hectic search, she could not be traced out. The informant further suspected that her daughter has been kidnapped by the accused persons including the present appellant with an intention to get her involved in illegal act. It appears from the record that though the occurrence, as alleged, took place on 08.10.2003 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 26.10.2003.

3. The Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the present appellant Mostt. Patri and another accused Surendra Mandal and the investigation was kept pending against Lilo Mandal, Sanatan Mandal, Lakshman Mandal and wife of Lilo Mandal. The Court took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions for trial whereafter the charges against the appellant and another accused Surendra Mandal were framed as aforesaid. The defence, as it appears from the record, was complete denial of the accusation and that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged.

4. In course of trial, prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses. Of them, the victim Sukhiya Devi has been examined as P.W. 6, informant Siya Devi as P.W. 3, Ritu Mandal as P.W.1, Kokai Mandal as P.W.2, Neva Devi as P.W. 4, Nisiya Devi as P.W. 5, the doctor, who had examined the victim as P.W.7, the Investigating Officer as P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 is a Judicial Officer, who had recorded the statement of the victim Sukhiya Devi Under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

5. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence and materials on record convicted Mostt. Patri Devi and sentenced as aforesaid.

6. Assailing the findings recorded by the court below, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no specific allegation against the appellant of any inducement to the victim girl with the intention that the girl would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with someone or that the accused knew that it was likely that she would be forced or seduced. It was also submitted that the existence of the specific intention or knowledge is most important element to constitute the offence under Section 366-A of I.P.C. and that even the victim gi