The appeal was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove the charge of kidnapping, establishing no enticement or illegal taking of the victim, as she left willingly.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

This appeal is directed Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2^nd May 2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sahibganj, in Special Case No.56 of 2003/S.C. No.116 of 2002 arising out of Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 104/2001, Sahibganj, whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused/appellant from the charges under Section 366-A and 368 of IPC and Section 3(xi), (xii) & (xv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, convicted the appellant under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to him R.I. for two and half months.

2. The prosecution story is based on the written statement made by PW-4 Lakshmi Baski on 21.6.2001 addressing to the Sahibganj police. The informant-PW-4 stated therein that her daughter left home for the college on 23.5.2001 but she did not return home. The informant with a view to trace her out, approached her relatives and friends but she could not get any clue. It has further been stated in the said written statement (Ext.-1) that one Birendra Kumar Yadav, son of Chhabu Yadav resident of village Jirwaberi (Chhote Panchger) District- Sahibganj, the present accused/appellant of this case used to visit her house every day to teach her daughter, who was residing adjacent to her house and the said boy was also found to be traceless since the date of missing of her daughter. In view of this fact as stated in the written petition, the informant was quite confident of the fact that the said boy, the present accused of this case must have enticed her daughter away for the purpose of marriage. It has been further stated therein that the informant is posted at Primary School, Bochahi as teacher and her husband is posted at Rajsthan in B.S.F. and only 3 boys (sons), one girl, one niece and a made servant were residing in her house as her family members. In view of these facts, it has been finally submitted in the application that her daughter be traced out for which she would ever remain obliged.

3. On the basis of such application, Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 104/2001 dated 01.07.2001 under section 366A I.P.C. and 3/4 S.C./S.T. ((P.Α.Ο) Act was registered against the aforesaid accused and on completion of the investigation, finally charge-sheet under sections 363/366/376/368 I.P.C. and U/s. 3(1) & (x) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was submitted against the accused and after cognizance this case was sent to this special Court to try the offences relating to S.C./S.T. (P.O.A.) Act and charges under section 363/366-A/376/368 of I.P.C. and U/s. 3(xi) (xii) (xv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was framed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Spl. Judge Sahibganj and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The learned trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Special P.P. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vasistha, appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

6. The learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the ingredients of constituting the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the