The court upheld the conviction for kidnapping and rape despite claims of consent, reinforcing that statutory definitions supersede personal relationships in criminal matters.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Above named appellant has preferred this criminal appeal challenging judgment of conviction dated 07.08.2007 and order of sentence dated 13.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 545 of 2004/Session Trial No. 86 of 2005 (arising out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 48 of 2004), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 366-A/34 and 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. R.I. for five years under Section 366(a) /34 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences are directed to be run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that informant’s daughter went to school on 16.06.2004 at 07:00 AM like every day, but she did not return home till night. Thereafter, he started searching her. In the meantime, he got information that one Surendra Lohra (appellant) took away his daughter with intention to marry with her. Upon search, he also found that Manoj Lohra, Sukkhu Lohra and Jagarnnath Lohara were also involved in kidnapping of his daughter and also helped him to conceal her. Despite keeping search, no clue was found, hence, FIR was lodged.

4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered against the accused person for the offence under Section 366A/34 of the I.P.C.

5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against the accused person for the offence under Section 366A/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal. Thereafter, charges were framed for the offences under Sections 366A/34 and 376 of the I.P.C., which were denied by accused persons claiming to be tried.

6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against accused person, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced.

Exhibit-1 : Medical Report.

Exhibit-2 : Written Report.

Exhibit-2/1 : Endorsement (handwriting and signature on the statement of 164 Cr.P.C. of victim).

Exhibit-3 : Formal FIR.

Exhibit-3/1 : Signature on Formal FIR.

Exhibit-1/1 : Requisition for medical test.

Exhibit-4 : Signature of victim girl on the statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.

Exhibit-4/1 : Statement of victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Exhibit-4/2 : Certificate of learned Magistrate.

7. On the other hand, the defence has examined one witness named as Surendra Lohra (D.W.-1) and apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced by the defence.

Exhibit-A, A/1 &A/2 : Letters.

Exhibit-B : Certificate of Doctor.

Exhibit-C & C/1 : Medical certificate for age proof.

Exhibit-D : Signature of D.W.-1 on marriage certificate.

Exhibit-D/1 : Signature of victim on marriage certificate.

8. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 366-A/34 and 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.

9. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that there was love affairs between the victim girl and the appellant and both eloped with their consent. The victim had got married with the appellant at her own will. She was never kidnapped by the appellant. The appellant has not procured the victim for the purpose of illicit intercourse or for marriage with any oth