Point of Law: An offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.

2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellant Manishankar challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012)/Additional District & Sessions Judge Lucknow. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation by the court of learned Special Judge (Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012)/Additional District & Sessions Judge Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 593 of 2015 (State Vs. Manishankar) arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2015, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of this case emerges as under:-

The first information report was lodged by father of the victim on 31.03.2015 with the allegation that the accused appellant enticed away his minor girl aged about 16 years. He search everywhere but she could not traced out. Therefore, on the basis of these allegations, FIR of this case against the appellant was lodged as Case Crime No. 142 of 2015 under Sections 363 & 366 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4. After lodging of this FIR, investigation of this case was entrusted to PW-6 Shailendra Kumar. During course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the victim. After recording the statement of the complainant and Head Moharir, the victim was recovered by police in presence of complainant near Kakori Naroha Road Lucknow on 02.04.2015. After recovery of the victim, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and then the victim was sent for medical examination on at Rani Laxmibai Hospital Rajajipuram, Lucknow where only external examination of the victim was done but father of the victim refused to internally examined the victim. During course of examination, x-ray of the victim was done for determination of age. As per x-ray report, the age of the victim was found to be 17-18 years at the time of the incident. During course of the investigation, Investigating Officer prepared site plan of incident as Ex. Ka-6 and place of recovery of the alleged victim as Ex. Ka-7. During investigation the victim was brought for recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. Ka-3) on 04.04.2015 wherein she has stated as under:-

^^eSa 30 ekpZ 2015 dks vius ?kj ls vdsys viuh ethZ ls fudyhA fQj eSa vius ifr ef.k'kadj] ftuls eSa igys gh efUnj esa 'kknh dj pqdh Fkh] ds lkFk lhrkiqj pyh x;hA ogkW ,d eafnj Fkk ogha x;saA eSa jkth Fkh tkus ds fy,A eSa vius ?kj ls Hkkxh Fkha] iqfyl sa cgyk Qqlykdj ugha ys x;k FkkA
;g c;ku eSa fdlh Mj esa ugha ns jgh gWw] lp cksy jgh gWwA**

5. After collecting entire evidence and formality of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on 01.06.2015 and the cognizance taken by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) and charge against the appellant was framed on 13.01.2016 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the charge was read over to the appellant in hindi and the appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. PW-1 complainant and father of the victim, PW-2 the victim herself, PW-3 Dr. Shashi Verma, who medically examined the victim, PW-4 Investigating Officer Teerath Raj Yadav, PW-5 Head Moharir Rajesh Kumar Saroj and PW-6 Shailendra Kumar, who re