A conviction for abduction is unsustainable where the court finds no force or deceit was employed. Furthermore, trial courts must prioritize scientific expert medical testimony for age determination and cannot substitute it with their own subjective assessment without a solid scientific basis.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. The appellant-Monu @ Raghvendra Tiwari is present in person and he states that he has furnished a personal bond and sureties before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in compliance of this Court’s order dated 03.04.2026.

2. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.01.2013 passed by Sri. Jagdish Prasad-IV, the learned IV Additional Session Judge, Ex- Cadre, Unnao in Session Trial No.68 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No.1393 of 2011 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao, whereby although the appellant has been acquitted of the charges for the offences under Sections 363 and 376 I.P.C., he has been convicted for the offence under Section 366 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay Rs.5,000/- as fine.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant gave a written complaint on 11.08.2011, stating that while he was in his grove at about 3:00 p.m. on 18.07.2011, his daughter aged 14 years went away with the appellant Monu, under the pretext of attending the call of nature and she took away silver anklets weighing about 250 grams, gold earrings worth about Rs.9,500/-, Rs.15,000/- cash and a mobile phone. The complainant's elder daughter Phool Kumari had seen the victim going away with the appellant. One Kamlesh resident of village Kurauli was also involved in it. The complainant told about the incident to the appellant's mother and brother Rohit and they told that the appellant had gone to Surat. The complainant asked Rohit to accompany him to Surat but Rohit denied and thereafter the complainant gave the complaint.

4. In the statement of Phool Kumari (the elder married daughter of the complainant) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that it was around 3:00 p.m., her parents were not at home, they were in the grove, the victim said she had to go to attend the call of nature, she got up from the cot, at that time the appellant came there on a motor cycle, stopped in front of her house, called the victim, the victim went to the appellant and went away with him on his motor cycle.

5. The informant told the investigating officer that he and his wife were guarding the mango grove. When they returned home in the evening, their elder daughter told that the appellant came there on a motor cycle, stopped in front of her house, the victim went to the appellant and went away with him on his motor cycle.

6. The informant’s wife stated that the appellant came there on a motor cycle, stopped on the paved road, called the victim by gesture and the victim went to the appellant and went away with him on his motor cycle. She further stated that the victim had taken away some jewelry and cash with her.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, F.I.R. No.1393/2011 was registered on 14.08.2011 against the appellant and Kamlesh for offenses under Sections 363 & 366 IPC.

8. The recovery memo prepared on 22.09.2011 states that while Sub- Inspector Teji