The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must establish the victim's age and consent beyond reasonable doubt in cases of alleged abduction and rape.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.671 of 1997 (Crime No.22 of 1997) State vs. Lalla, P.S. Gosainganj, district Lucknow under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, with default provision, under section 376 I.P.C..

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.1.1997 at about 8.00p.m., the accused Lalla enticed away daughter of the complainant Rajaram without her consent. She has taken silver ornaments and Rs.2200/- cash along with her. Even after ample search, her whereabouts could not be found. This incident has been seen by Gama and Santram of his village. A written report of the incident was given at police station Gosainganj on 16.1.1997, on the basis of which first information report was registered. On 27.1.1997, the victim was recovered.

3. Charges under sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. were framed against the accused which was denied by him and the accused claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced P.W.1 Rajaram, P.W.2 Dashratha, P.W.3 Gama (independent witness), P.W.4 Santram (independent witness), P.W.5 Constable 1787 Fakhrul Hasan, P.W.6 Radhey Shyam, Inspector, P.W.7 Dr. Ratna Pandey who medically examined the victim and P.W.8 Kumari Sunita Sachan.

Statement of the accused has been taken under section 313 CrPC, in which his case was of denial.

5. P.W. 1 complainant Rajaram has stated that the victim was 13 to 14 years old. On the date of incident, at about 8.00p.m., Lalla accused of the village has enticed her daughter away to keep her with him. The victim has not taken anything with her. When he returned at about 1.00 in the night, his wife told him regarding the incident. Santram and Gama of the village had seen the victim and the accused. He reported the incident on 16th. He got written the report from the daughter of one Munshi and put his thumb impression thereon. He has proved Ext.Ka.1, written report. In his examination-in-chief, he has further stated that in the written report, the fact regarding taking away ornaments and money has been mentioned by him due to the fact that he was envious. He again stated that she did not take money and ornaments with her. After six days, he came to know that the victim and the accused were apprehended by the police at Amethi Chauraha. After medical examination, the victim was handed over to the complainant. After 6-7 days of the incident, the victim was handed over in his supurdagi. He has proved the recovery memo as Ext. Ka-2.

In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that while he returned home, his wife did not tell him as to with whom the victim has gone. After ample search when the victim was not found and Lalla too was not found at his home, then he was of firm belief that it is Lalla who enticed the victim away. He does not know the name of the girl who wrote the written report. He further stated that the fact of ornaments and money taken by the victim was written in the written report by him due to the fact that he was envious. He further stated that the investigating officer did not visit his village. He denied the suggestion that the victim herself went away with Lalla. He further denied the suggestion that at the time of the incident, the victim was 20 years old.

P.W.2 Dashratha aged about 16 years has stated in her examination-in-chief that she knows the accused who is present in Court. He is a resident of her village. On the date of incident, while she was tying the buffalo calf, the accused dragged her towards Ghuskar village and threatened her that if she raises alarm, she will be shot by the country-made pistol. She was stopped from raising alarm. She was kept in Ghuskar village with a person of that village, at his place. She was raped by the appellant. Although, she cried but the app