IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J
Chand Turi, Son Of Shri Hemchandra Turi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.05.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No.116 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under section 366A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 6 years along with fine of Rs.2.000/- and further held guilty for the offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 7 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 14.04.2005, the informant had gone to Heramanpur Hatia along with his wife and returned in the evening at about 6:00 PM, then he came to know that his minor daughter aged about 14 years has been kidnapped by the co-villager Chand Turi and his friend Jisu Kisku on motorcycle with intention to commit illicit intercourse with her.
3. On the basis of written report of the informant, Littipara P.S. Case No.21 of 2005 was registered for the offence under section 366A of IPC . After compl
The conviction for rape was upheld based on consistent victim testimony, while the conviction for kidnapping was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent.
Consent of a minor is not valid under law, affirming the conviction for rape while setting aside the kidnapping conviction due to lack of evidence.
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 ....
Victim's testimony is paramount in sexual assault cases; absence of consent is established despite claims of the victim's age affecting the offence's classification.
Conviction under Section 366A IPC requires proven inducement and intent for illicit intercourse, which were not established in this case.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the victim's age, consent, and the timeliness of lodging the FIR in cases of alleged inducement and rape.
The absence of proven intent for illicit intercourse under Section 366A leads to the conviction under Section 363 for kidnapping, emphasizing the need for clear evidentiary standards in such cases.
For convicting a person under Section 366 A it is essential to establish that one has induced a girl below age of 18 years to go away from any place with intent that she would be forced or seduced to....
Conviction under Section 363 for kidnapping established, while acquittal under Sections 366A and 120B upheld due to lack of evidence for conspiracy and illicit intent.
In criminal cases, the possibility of false implication necessitates the acceptance of the accused's innocence when evidence is inconclusive.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.