The central legal point established in the judgment is that the specific actions of the appellant did not meet the criteria for the offenses of kidnapping, outraging modesty, and procuration of a minor girl as per the relevant sections of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence, both dated 27.06.2003, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 416 of 1995, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 448 of the IPC, RI for one year under Section 354 of the IPC and RI for 7 years under Section 366A/511 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo SI for three months, and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.08.91, appellant Jaspal Singh along with his three associates entered in the house of informant with an intent to kidnap his minor daughter and on raising alarm all other associates fled away and Jaspal Singh was apprehended by mohalla people and handed over to the police.

4. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the legal issue that when the victim girl was not taken away by the appellant; Section 366 A of the IPC is not maintainable.

He further submits that as per the admitted position, the appellant only hold the hand of the girl which is in no case be termed as outraging the modesty of the girl. The background of facts is that both were having love affairs and they have also solemnized marriage; however, the learned trial court has failed to consider the defence version as well as the exhibits produced by the defence including the photographs and the love letters which were written by both the parties.

He contended that since it was a case of love affair and the informant, who is the father of the victim was opposed to it, the entire prosecution story has been concocted and was made just to take revenge. As a matter of fact, the defence was very specific that the allegations were not proved since the victim Sangita Das fell in love with the appellant and there was exchange of several love letters between them, but the learned trial court has simply brushed aside the love letters and the documents produced by the defence. As a matter of fact, the family of Sangita Das did not like the affair between the two and they were opposed to their marriage and due to this fact, the appellant and Sangita Das got married in April, 1991 against the will of her family.

Even, Sangita Das, the alleged victim, made an application to the Deputy Commissioner seeking police protection from her family members on 24.04.1991. Further, the marriage took place in Gurudwara in Burma Mines at Jamshedpur and only after a week of the marriage, the informant came to Jamshedpur and brought back the appellant and the victim girl to Dhanbad on 06.05.1991. They were taken to Dhanbad police from where Sangita Das was handed over to her father but at that time no case was registered and the present FIR has been lodged after about three months which clearly goes to show that it is a revenge of the earlier incidence.

The learned trial court has failed to give any finding on the defense version. Though, he has stated that admittedly, the victim Sangita Das had accompanied with accused earlier to Jamshedpur, he has also given finding that she admitted the photographs and letters filed by the defense but due to the age as mentioned in the certificate that she was a minor aged about 17 years, learned trial court has convicted the appellant. As such, the judgment of conviction should be set aside and the appellant should be acquitted.

5. Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned APP and Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 opposed the prayed for acquittal and submits that it is an admitted case that the appellant entered the house of the informant and hold the hand of his minor daughter. However, both of them could not dispute the fact that both the appellant and the minor victim were in love affairs. Even they could not dispute the factum of the