The main legal point established in the judgment is that even if an offense is non-compoundable, the court may allow the appeal to be compounded in cases involving a personal nature of dispute, peaceful resolution between the parties, and the larger interest of quietness, peace, and happy conjugal life.

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Jamtara in Sessions Trial Case No. 74 of 2017, in connection with Karmatanr P.S. Case No.114 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.641 of 2016, Jamtara, Jharkhand whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Jamtara has convicted the appellant under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for two month under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief fact of the prosecution case is based on the written information of Jitu Gorain (P.W. 9) addressed to Officer-In-Charge of Karmatanr. The prosecution story is that the occurrence was of 19.07.2016 at 10:30 A.M. when his daughter "X" was coming from the house of her maternal uncle and on the way near Samukhpokhar Bus Stand, the accused Rohit Rai had taken her away on his motorcycle. He has further alleged that his daughter "X" was minor, aged about only 15 years. He has further stated that he had gone to field at that time along with his wife and the occurrence of kidnapping of his daughter was informed by his son, then he searched his daughter but he could not find her trace and then he lodged a case against accused Rohit Rai.

3. On the basis of written application of informant Karmatanr P.S. Case No.114/2016 was registered on 21.07.2016 for the offence punishable u/s 366-A of IPC against accused. The I.O. after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s 376 and 366-A of IPC and thereafter the charges were also framed u/s 366-A and 376 of IPC on 28.07.2017 by Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara and after framing of the charge, the trial was commenced and the learned court below after conducting full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence under which the sole appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 363 of IPC and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel for victim P.W. 1 and learned Addl.P.P for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of appellant and victim-

5. During the course of the argument it has jointly been submitted on behalf of the appellant and victim P.W. 1 that as a matter of fact it was a case of love affair between the alleged victim (P.W. 1) and the appellant and guardians of the victim were not ready to get them married and therefore, the case was instituted, as it is evident from the categorical testimonies of victim (P.W. 1) who has been examined as P.W. 1 during the course of the trial. But, despite of these facts the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed. Further, it has been pointed out that during the pendency of this appeal a joint compromise petition was filed on behalf of the appellant and the victim (P.W. 1) stating therein that both (the appellants and the victim) have solemnized the marriage and they are living happily as husband and wife in a very harmonious and cordial relationship. It has further been submitted jointly on behalf of the appellant and the victim (P.W. 1) that due to intervention of common relatives and well-wishers (both the parties the appellant and the wife victim P.W. 1) amicably settled their dispute and now there is no grievance between them or their family members and, therefore, it is jointly submitted on behalf of the appellant and the victim (P.W. 1) that although the judgment of conviction has been passed u/s 363 of IPC which is non-compoundable in nature, let this appeal be disposed of as compounded in the interest of justice, because it was clearly a personal nature of dispute between two families which was prevailing between the parties. Now after solemnizatio