Conviction under Section 366A IPC requires proven inducement and intent for illicit intercourse, which were not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Fahad Allam, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.08.2006 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IX in S.T. Case No.366 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellant was sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation for the offences punishable under Section 366 A/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. The prosecution case is based on written report of Hiraman Prasad (informant) stating inter alia that on 31.05.2001 at around 10:00 PM, his minor daughter, Kiran Kumari, went to the roof of the house after dinner. The informant suspected that his tenant, Uma Das (appellant), was trying to make arrangement for the talk in between his daughter and another tenant, Chitranjan Ojha, despite his earlier objections. After an hour, he found that his daughter along with Uma Das, Charan Das and Chitranjan Ojha, were missing from the roof and the back door of his house was opened. He suspected that his daughter had been kidnapped for improper purposes. Initially, to protect his family's dignity, he did not report the matter to the police but later submitted a typed report on 05.06.2001, suspecting the accused persons have kidnapped his daughter. On the basis of informant's typed report, a formal F.I.R. was instituted as Kadma P.S. Case No.67 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 366 , 366(A) and 120(B) of the I.P.C. During investigation, the victim girl was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.366 of 2001 was registered; Charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 366 A/120B of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him for which he denied and claimed to be tried. Trial of the co-accused Chitranjan Ojha was separated from the original file as he was absconded.

5. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is a woman and there is simple allegation against her that she called the victim girl in pretext that her father was calling while she was going on roof of the house then she step down and was kidnapped by other co-accused persons. Admittedly, there was dispute of eviction from rented quarter belonging to informant in which the appellant was residing and due to some practical difficulty, appellant was not able to vacate the rented quarter, hence, she has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant is absolutely innocent. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. In alternative, it is pleaded that the appellant has remained in custody for one year and four months out of three years' imprisonment awarded to her for the offence under Section 366A/34 of the I.P.C. Therefore, she may be sentenced for the imprisonment already undergone.

7. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions defending the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant and submitted that the appellant was main pers