The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and consistent evidence to establish the elements of a criminal offense, particularly regarding the age of the victim and the voluntariness of their actions.

JUDGMENT :

Ratnaker Bhengra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2010 and order of sentence dated 19.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. II, at Seraikella whereby and whereunder appellant was convicted under section 366 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default appellant was further sentenced to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment, in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 157 of 2004 dated 25.11.2004 ( G.R. Case No. 865 of 2004) corresponding to S.T. No. 58 of 2005. Period under gone was ordered to be set off.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written information dated 25.11.2004 of the informant PW-4 Shyamapado Pramanik is that informant’s daughter (name concealed and hereinafter referred to as a victim) was minor and was student of Class X. On 22.11.2004 at about 10:00 am, victim had gone to school for studying and depositing fee and when the victim did not return home till 4:30 pm, then informant started searching her at different places and at his relatives place. Later on informant came to know that Hira Lal Prajapati (appellant herein), Manish Kumar Choudhary, Bimlesh Mandal @ Bablu, Md. Rehman and Grijesh Gaurav @ Suraj had kidnapped his daughter on allurement of marriage. Informant tried to search his daughter with assistance of his neighbourers but informant did not know the whereabouts of his daughter and then the written report was filed by the informant in the police station.

3. On the basis of the written report of the informant Chandil P.S. case no. 157 of 2004 dated 25.01.2004 was registered under section 366(A) of IPC against five named accused persons including the appellant herein. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under sections 366, 366(A) and 376 IPC against three accused persons including the appellant herein. Charges were framed against three accused persons including the appellant herein under section 366 and 366(A) of IPC and separate charge was framed against the appellant under section 376 IPC and trial was held. At the conclusion of the trial two other accused persons were acquitted of the charges and the appellant was acquitted from the charge under section 376 IPC, but, appellant was convicted under section 366 IPC, hence, this appeal.

4. Prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses out of whom PW-4 Shyamapado Pramanik is the informant of the case and father of the victim girl; PW-6 is the victim girl; PW-1 is Brinda Pramanik, who is the mother of the victim girl; PW-2 is Banamath Pramanik @ Manabodh Pramanik, who is the cousin brother of the victim; PW-3 is Dr. Manorama Siddhesh, who had examined the victim girl and PW-5 is Jitan Devi, who is the aunt of the victim girl. Albanus Bara, who is the Investigating Officer of the case was examined as court witness or C.W.-1.

5. PW 4 is Shyampado Pramanik, who is the informant of this case and father of the victim girl. Informant had stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 10:00 am, his daughter aged about 14-15 years had gone to school, but, did not return. He came to know that Hira Lal Prajapati, Manish, Bimlesh, Suraj and Rehman had kidnapped his daughter. Informant searched for his daughter and when he did not find her, then the matter was reported at the police station. Informant had identified his signature on the written application which was marked as Ext.-2. Informant further stated that after 5-7 days he was called by the police at police station where he found his daughter and accused Hira Lal and Manish were also there. Thereafter, by the order of the court, informant brought his daughter to his house. His daughter disclosed that Hira Lal Prajapati, Manish, Bimlesh, Rehman and Suraj had kidnapped her after allurement but for which purpose they had taken her away, he did not know. Informant had identified the accused Hira Lal Prajapati in the court and did not identi