JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 22.08.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC-VII, Ranchi, in S.T. No.592 of 1998, arising out of Itaki P.S. Case No.35 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No.2362 of 1997, whereby the sole accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 354, 509 and 366/511 of IPC and directed to serve one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 of IPC, two years for the offence committed under Section 354 of IPC, one month S.I. for the offence committed under Section 509 of IPC and R.I. for five years for the offence committed under Section 366/511 of IPC.

2. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of the beyan dated 07.10.1997 of the informant (Hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’:- name held up to maintain confidentiality), where she had given her statement before the officer-in-charge of Itaki P.S. that on 6.10.1997, she had gone to the house of her maternal uncle, which is situated just 25 yards away from her house. After cleaning the house of her mama, she left the house for washing the utensil and reached near the hand pump. There was completely dark. No one was with her. All of a sudden, the accused-appellant Devendra Mahali appeared and caught hold her hand and taking her away from that place to lonely field and said don’t raise hue and cry, ‘’I will marry with you.’’ Out of fear, she tried to flee away from the grip of the accused, but she was caught hold by the accused with force and again accused was taking her away forcibly. Thereafter, she raised hue and cry and got rid off from the grip of the accused and ran away. She was chased by the accused and caught hold of by him. She was put on ground and tried to outrage the modesty. After hearing the hulla of the informant, her mama and father reached at the place of occurrence and rescued her from the grip of the accused. Thereafter, accused was assaulted by the villagers. She has further stated that accused has torn her garments. She has further stated that accused Devendra Mahali had given her threatening on 3.10.1997, while she was going to fetch the soil from the pond when she was intercepted by the accused and told that he wanted to marry with her.

3. On the basis of statement recorded by Officer In-charge, Itaki P.S., FIR was registered under Sections 341, 354, 509 and 366/511 of IPC against the sole accused appellant and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in this case, on the basis of which, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Mrs. Suchitra Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP appearing on behalf of the State.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserved to be set-aside as the same has been passed against the weight of evidence. It is contended that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the statement of informant (PW – 5) is contradicted by the statement of father (PW – 1) and maternal uncles PW 3 and PW 4. It is contended that the investigating officer of the case has not been examined, which has greatly prejudiced to the appellant as his attention could not be drawn on the point of exaggerated versions of P.Ws. Further it has also been contended by the learned Amicus that it is not a case of attempt to kidnap or abduct or induce the ‘victim’ inasmuch as any act of the appellant did not indicate his intention either to compel her to marry with him or to force or seduce her to illicit inter course and relied upon the rulings o