A minor's consent is immaterial in cases of kidnapping and abduction when threats or deceit are involved, according to Section 363 and 366 of IPC.

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Heard Shri Deenanath Mishra, learned amicus curie for the appellant and Shri Satyendra Nath Tiwari, leaned AGA for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the sole appellant-Ramvir being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.8.1983 passed by the XI^th Additional Session Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 1982 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment of 3 years and 5 years respectively.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that victim/informant lodged an FIR on 30.4.1980 at 11 a.m. at Police Station Gwalior stating therein that she is the daughter of Shri Ram Gopal Vaidya, resident of Etmadpur, Police Station-Etmadpur, District Agra and is aged about 15 years. She came to the Police Station and made a statement that she has appeared in 10th class and Ramvir, who is the resident of Nagla and known to her father used to come to her village. On 24.4.1980, she was present in the medical shop of her father and her father was not there. The said Ramvir came to the medical shop of her father and asked her to accompnay him for watching cinema on the pretext that he has already taken permission from her father. The appellant brought her to Tundla and told her to come to Agra to watch cinema there. Then, he brought her to Agra and after watching the cinema at Agra, he told that he will marry her. When she refused, then he threatened that she will not be left alive and asked her to follow silently and told that if anybody asked her, then she should tell that he is her brother-in-law. Out of fear, she accompanied the said Ramvir, who brought her to Gwalior on 25.4.1980 and kept her in the house of one Rajendra, one of the relative of Ramvir and he told his relative that the victim is her sister-in-law and has come for tourism. Since then, she was kept in the house of Rajendra. Today, when Ramvir had gone to market, then she had escaped from the house and straight away came to the police station. Ramvir had brought her forcefully and she is reporting for the same. On such report submitted by the victim, the police arrested the accused-appellant Ramvir and after registration of the FIR, the case was handed over to police station Etmadpur. The victim was thereafter handed over to her father at the police station.

4. The medical examination of the victim was conducted on 1.5.1980 and in the medical examination, no injury was found on the private parts of the victim. X-ray was conducted and as per the x-ray reports, age of the victim was found between 16-18 years. No opinion was given by the doctor with regard to any rape of the victim as according to the doctor the victim was habitual of masturbation. The matter was investigated by the police and after recording the statement of witnesses, chargesheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined the father of the victim-Ram Gopal as P.W. 1, victim as P. W. 2, Hargyan Singh as P.W. 3, Dr. Veena Jain as P. W. 4, Lakhan Singh Parihar as P. W. 5 and Constable Ranvir Singh as P. W. 6.

6. P. W. 1-Ram Gopal is the father of the victim and he stated that on the date of incident he has gone to Agra to take the medicines for his medical shop; when he returned at around 4 p.m., he came to know that his daughter is not at home. He tried to search her out, then his compounder Shankar Lal told that master Hargyan Singh-P..W. 3 has seen the appellant and vic