The judgment emphasizes the requirement for credible and direct evidence to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases of abduction under Section 366 IPC, and highlights the necessity of specific intent as established in legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri H.P. Gupta, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by Narain challenging judgment and order dated 20.12.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.18, Allahabad in Session Trial No.493 of 1996(State vs. Narain), Police Station Lalapur, District Allahabad convicting and sentencing appellant to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 366 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for three months. He has been acquitted under sections 363 & 376 IPC.

3. According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against the appellant alleging that on 9.10.1989 at 8 A.M. he kidnapped the daughter of complainant and she was found in the field of 'Bajra' of Lal Bahadur. The appellant attempted to flee the scene but he was caught hold by the public.

4. Relevant documents were prepared. According to medical report, the age of victim girl was found about 17 years.

5. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken by the competent Court. The case was committed to Sessions for trial. Charges under section 363, 366 & 376 IPC were framed on 24.8.1998. The appellant pleaded not guilty

6. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined P.W.1 Suggi Lal(father of prosecutrix), P.W.2 Suraj Pal (so-called eye-witness).

7. Formality to prove other documents of prosecution is dispensed with by the learned counsel for accused appellant. Other related documents were exhibited.

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused-person under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. He denied charges and stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. In defence, no evidence was produced.

9. Trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the accused appellant and Assistant District Government Counsel(Criminal), vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2000, convicted accused appellant for the offence under Section 366 IPC. Hence this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was acquitted under section 363 and 376 IPC by same judgment dated 20.12.2000. Trial Court found that prosecutrix was major and no rape was committed by the appellant. Hence, appellant cannot be convicted under section 366 IPC only on this ground. Appeal is liable to be allowed. Moreover, only two witnesses, one father of prosecurix and another so-called eye-witness have been examined and they stated nothing against the appellant. Even not a single word has been stated/spoken before the Court by both the witnesses. Even then, if there is any documentary evidence against the appellant, that is not corroborated by the ocular evidence adduced by P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence, conviction and sentence awarded by lower Court is not sustainable. This is the case of no evidence. Although both witnesses are interested witnesses, even then because they stated nothing against the appellant, therefore conviction is based only on the ground of surmises and conjectures, and judgment is based on the basis of sentiments only. There is no legal evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is liable to be acquitted.

11. Learned A.G.A submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant to convict him.

12. This Court considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through entire record.

13. This Court after scanning the evidence on record, has to adjudicate whether the prosecution has proved charges levelled against accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt or not. Word 'proved' is defined under Section 3 of Evidence Act as under:-

"Proved".-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable tha