The main legal point established is that consistent evidence and the duration of the case can influence the court's decision in affirming a conviction and modifying a sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 18.02.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 172/1998 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.10.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 843/1983, T.R. No. 939/1998, arising out of Baghmara (Mahuda) P.S. Case No. 323/1983 dated 07.09.1983 and dismissed the criminal appeal. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced his arguments on 08.12.2021 and 18.02.2022. He had submitted on 08.12.2021 that the present case is a very old case and the incident is of 04.09.1983 i.e. about 38 years ago and the present age of the petitioner is about 60 years. He further submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and as per the prosecution case, as well as the statement of the victim-P.W.-2, though the victim was a child of around 10 years, but he himself had gone to the market and then, to the railway station where the petitioner alongwith the co-accused had forced him to board the train alongwith them. He submitted that as the victim had himself gone to the railway station, the basic ingredients for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied.

5. On 18.02.2021 , the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 942 (S. Varadarajan vs. State of Madras) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately explained the term taking out of lawful guardianship and has held that the proximate cause is required to be seen. He submitted that in the present case, the victim had voluntarily moved out of his house with his friend and thereafter, he had gone to the railway station from where he was allegedly kidnapped by the petitioner and the co-accused. He submitted that considering this aspect of the matter, the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set aside.

6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel also submitted that the occurrence had taken place as back as in the year 1983 and about 38 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence. The charge was framed on 06.12.1997 and the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court in the year 1998 and thereafter, the appeal was dismissed. During the trial, the petitioner had remained in custody from 08.09.1983 to 11.10.1983 and from 18.04.1988 to 25.04.1988 and at the stage of revision, he had surrendered before the learned court below on 11.06.2003 and he was granted bail by an order of this Court dated 17.07.2003 and a few days must have been taken in furnishing the bail bonds. Thus, the petitioner has remained in custody for about 03 months. He submitted that considering the long period of the criminal case which the petitioner has faced, the sentence may be modified and limited to the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

7. In response, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope for re-appreciation of the evidences on record and coming to a different finding. She also submitted that the victim of the case has also been examined before the learned trial court and the victim has clearly stated, even during his cross examination, that the p