The court upheld the conviction for kidnapping despite claims of contradictions in evidence and released the petitioner on probation due to his societal integration and lack of reoffending.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 06.03.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baripada, Mayurbhanj in Criminal Appeal No.217/30 of 2001-2000, affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioner dated 05.04.2000 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Baripada, Mayurbhanj in G.R. Case No.1179 of 1997 (T.C. No.266 of 1999) under Section 363 of I.P.C. and imposing a sentence of R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only). In default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that on 23.11.1997 at about 10.00 a.m., the minor daughter of Informant Ghasiram Giri of village, while returning home on the village road after taking bath in river Sankari, was kidnapped by the accused Petitioner from the outskirts of the village and was confined in a room of his house by locking it from outside. The father of the victim convened a village meeting where the Panch members requested the accused Petitioner to release her, but he paid no heed. Thereafter, the matter was reported at Gangiriposi Police Station, on the basis of which a case was registered. The Investigating Officer rescued the victim and, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge- sheet against the accused Petitioner under Sections 363 /368 IPC .

3. The case of the defense was one of complete denial and false implication.

4. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of which the P.W.6, the victim, P.W.1, the informant and P.W.15, the I.O. are the material witnesses and several documents were marked Exts. 1 to 7/1.

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused Petitioner.

5. Considering the evidence and materials on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the Petitioner for commission of offence under Section 363 of IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for four months.

Upon appeal, the learned Appellate Court, relying primarily on the evidence of P.W.6 and the extra-judicial confession of the victim deposed to by P.W.3, found no infirmity in the findings of the Trial Court and accordingly affirmed both the conviction and the sentence imposed. Assailing which, the present revision has been preferred.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the appreciation of the materials on record by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, is perverse inasmuch as there are material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.6 and that of P.W.1, the informant. It is contended that the learned Courts below failed to take such contradictions into account while recording the order of conviction. In view of such perverse appreciation of the judgments passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

7. On perusal of the evidence of the victim (P.W.6) as well as that of the I.O. (P.W.15), this Court is of the considered view that the victim has corroborated the prosecution case in material particulars. As such, there is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

8. So far as sentence is concerned, as an alternative prayer, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act