The court maintained the conviction for kidnapping and abduction under IPC sections, granting probation to the elderly appellants, fulfilling justice despite the conviction.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 376 - Conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC with sentences modified to probation - Court affirmed conviction based on compelling evidence; however, considering the age of the appellants (70 and 65 years), probation was granted under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. (Paras 1, 2, 12, 33)

(B) Ingredient of IPC Offenses - The crucial elements required to establish kidnapping and abduction as per Sections 363 and 366 IPC were examined and affirmed based on the available evidence. (Paras 16, 17, 21)

(C) Appeal Grounds - The appellants asserted that the trial court erred in appreciating evidence and that they were falsely implicated due to neighborhood rivalry. (Paras 12, 18)

(D) Final Order - The original sentences were altered to probation with certain conditions. (Paras 33, 35)

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 21)
2. appellants' arguments against conviction (Para 12 , 13 , 24 , 25)
3. ingredients of sections 363 and 366 ipc (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
4. court's observations on age and evidence (Para 19 , 20 , 22)
5. consideration of appellants' age and no prior convictions (Para 30 , 31)
6. final order and modification of sentence (Para 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants, Ram Sajeewan and Smt. Kevala, against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, District Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 793 of 1998 in Case Crime No. 1995, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Deeh, District Raebareli, convicting the appellants under Section 363 IPC to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 366 IPC 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that there is a house of appellant-Ram Sajeevan in front of informant house, wherein brother-in- law of Ram Sajeevan, namely, Budhai was living from one and half month and he often used to go in the house of informant. On 11.02.1995 at about 06:00 to 07:00 p.m. on the behest of the appellants Ram Sajeevan and his wife Smt. Kevala, Budhai, who is brother-in-law of Ram Sajeevan, enticed the informant’s minor daughter, aged about 15 years and took her away with intention to marry her. It is also alleged that when Budhai was taking her away, they were seen by the villager Babadeen Kori and others.

4. In respect of the said incident, a written complaint, Exhibit-Ka-1 was submitted by the informant-Fulmati to the SHO, Police Station Deeh, District Raebareli. On that basis, FIR Exhibit Ka-4 lodged on 12.02.1995 against Budhai, Ram Sajeevan and wife of Ram Sajeevan, namely, Smt. Kevala, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.

5. During the course of investigation, medical examination of the victim was conducted. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and statement of the witnesses were recorded and after collecting evidence, the chargesheet against Ram Sajeewan and Smt. Kevala, under Sections 363, 366 IPC had been filed.

6. Finding the above offence exclusively triable by learned Sessions Court, the copy of relevant documents had been provided to the appellants and on 26.11.1998 the case was committed to the sessions Court, from where this case was transferred in the court of Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli. Before the trial court, the appellants/accused persons appeared and charge under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC was framed against them on 14.02.2000, wherein they denied from the charge levelled against them and claimed to be tried.

7. From the side of prosecution, as many as seven witnesses have been examined. PW-1 Phulmati W/o Devatadeen, PW-2 Pramila Devi and PW-3 Babadeen have proved the prosecution case. PW-4 Dr. Reeta Raman, who has conducted the medical examination of the victim, PW-5 Ashok Kumar, who has proved the FIR as Exhibit K-4, PW-6 S.L. Sharma, PW-7 Ram Sundar Yadav who had proved the site plan Exhibit Ka-6 and chargesheet as Exhibit Ka-7.

8. After closing the evidence of prosecution, the statement of the appellants/accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they stated that they have falsely been implicated and concocted evidence has been produced against them.

9. In defence, they have not adduced any ocular evidence but produced a copy of Parivar register in their support.

10. After hearing the learned District Government Advocate (Crl.) and learned counsel for the appellants/accused persons, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2004, wherein