The court established that a victim's lack of resistance and the ability to disclose coercion undermined claims of enticement, leading to acquittal when doubt remained regarding consent.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 04.11.2003 passed by the learned 6^th Additional Session Judge (F.T.C) Dumka in Session Case No. 123 of 2003/2/03 corresponding to G.R. No. 522 of 2003 & Dumka (muff.) P.S. Case No. 49 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the learned court has been pleased to convict the appellant u/s 366A and 368 of I.P.C. and directed to undergo R.I.of four years and three years respectively.

2. The case of the prosecution is based upon the fardbeyan of father-in-law of victim recorded on 10.06.2002 who stated that he and his wife were taking back their daughter-in-law from village Dhadhakia (her parental home) to his place at Haripur on 07.05.2002 and in the evening they boarded on a vehicle maxi. As maxi was over crowded, therefore, he sat on the roof of the maxi whereas his wife and daughter-in-law (victim) sat on different seats of maxi. When passenger got down and there was room in the maxi then he came from the roof and saw that his daughter-in-law was not present in the maxi. His wife was also not aware about the absence of their daughter- in-law. On query from conductor, informant came across the fact that one boy and girl deboarded from maxi at Karma more and they went towards karma village, thereafter, he made search of his daughter-in- law and reached Dhadhakia and apprised his samdhi (father of victim) and villager about missing of his daughter-in-law. During course of search, it was found that Babloo Roy @ Manoj Roy resident of Dhadhakia enticed his daughter-in-law and taken away. Further his samdhi apprised informant that victim was kept by Babloo Roy @ Manoj Roy and kept her in his house at Dhadhakia and was not allowing any person to meet her. Then information was given to police and above said fardbeyan got recorded and on the basis of which Dumka (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 49 of 2002 on 10.06.2002 under Section 341 , 342 & 363 I.P.C. got registered.

3. From perusal of record it transpires that after institution of FIR police arrested the appellant and recovered victim also from the house of appellant and after due investigation chargesheet was submitted that cognizance was taken and matter was committed to court of sessions. Charges has been framed under Section 366 and 368 IPC to which convict/appellant did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Victim has been examined in the present case as P.W. 5 who stated that she was going to her sasural with her father-in-law and mother-in- law by vehicle and the convict-appellant had put cloth on her mouth, took her away from the vehicle and extended threat and asked her to accompany him. She was taken to Burdwan and she was kept there for fifteen days and thereafter she was brought to his home (at Dhadhakia) and she was not allowed to come out of the house and when her in- laws intimated police, then she was recovered from his house. Father- in-law has been examined as P.W. 8 and mother-in-law has also been examined as P.W. 9, who primarily stated in their respective testimony about taking away of daughter-in-law by convict/appellant while they were going to their place(Haripur). In cross-examination P.W. 5 (victim) has stated that there was number of persons in the vehicle and she was sitting near her father-in-law, mother-in-law and at the time of deboarding she made hulla (shouted) but passengers sitting in the vehicle did not stop her and her in-laws also did not stop her. She boarded down from the maxi by telling her mother-in-law that she was going for urination and thereafter, bus started and she was kept by appellant and she went to