JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the accused/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.12.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Umariya, in S.T. No. 59 of 2017 (State of MP v. Manoj Sahu), whereby appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under section 363 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.9.2016 at about 2:15 p.m. Moorat Prasad Sahu (PW-1) R/o village Ratheli, P.S. Umariya District Umariya (M.P.) appeared at P.S. Umariya and lodged First Information Report, stating that he is a resident of Village Ratheli and is a farmer and labour. He is blessed with two sons and two daughters. His younger daughter Rinki is studying in Government Higher Secondary School, Karkeli in class-XIIth. Daily she used to go to school from home. On 12.9.2016, she after having meal at around 9:00 a.m. left for school but did not return home till evening. He searched his daughter in all his relative’s house and at Karkeli and Umariya but he could not trace his daughter. His daughter is 17 years 06 months old. Her complexion is fair, her height is 05 ft. She is wearing blue kurta and white salwar of school dress and is also wearing white color shoes. She speaks Hindi and local language. It appears that someone has lured away his daughter. Manoj Sahu S/o Sudama Prasad Sahu of his village is also not in his home from the same day. He suspected that Manoj has kidnapped her daughter.

3. On the basis of above narration given by Mooratlal Sahu (PW-1), FIR (Ex. P-1) was registered in P.S. Umariya at FIR No. 461 of 2016 for commission of offence under section 363 of IPC. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against accused before the Court of learned C.J.M., Umariya, who in his turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

4. Learned Sessions Judge, Umaria framed the charges against appellant/accused for commission of offence under section 363 and 366-A of IPC. Appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Mooratlal Sahu (PW-1), Smt. Lalli Bai (PW-2), Rinki Sahu (PW-3), Vivek Sahu (PW-4), Vinod Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Ramesh Singh (PW-6), Vipin Tiwari (PW-7) and S.N. Mishra (PW-8). The appellant/accused has not examined any witness in his defence.

6. The learned trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record convicted the appellant Manoj Sahu for commission of offence under section 363 of IPC and sentenced him as stated herein above.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the trial Court recorded in the impugned judgment and has submitted that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that at the time of elopement, Rinki was below 18 years of age. Despite that learned trial Court without any iota of evidence has convicted the appellant under section 363 of IPC.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a case of no evidence against the appellant/accused, and even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that Rinki had gone with appellant/accused by that time she was above 18 years of age. Thus, the findings recorded by learned trial Court being against the material available on record are perverse and are liable to be discarded. Thus, it has been prayed that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2019 be set-aside and appellant/accused may be acquitted of offence.

9. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment and findings recorded by learned trial Court and has submitted that appeal has been filed without any merits. Hence, same be dismissed.

10. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial Court record and impug