IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that consent and age are critical in abduction cases, and the prosecution must prove intent to abduct for illicit purposes under IPC sections 363 and 366.

JUDGMENT :

This present criminal appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 20-7-2004 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Session Trial No. 60/2004, whereby the appellant - Hiramani Singh has been convicted for offence under sections 363 and 366 of the IPC (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/- each count, in default of payment of fine undergo R.I. for three-three months respectively.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

In the intervening night of 21/22 January, 2004, at about 10:30 PM the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was in her house and her family members were slept. At around 12:30 in the night, her father Roshanlal woke up and noticed that her daughter (prosecutrix) was not on the bed and he informed her mother and both were searching and noticed that all doors were locked inside and she might climb on the roof of house and jumped on the roof of adjacent house because roof of adjacent house is in dilapidated condition and they presumed that their daughter might have eloped with Hiramani Singh because in earlier he has given several letters to his daughter and suspected. Further the prosecutrix had gone to their relative’s house at Jabalpur stayed for 15 days. One Santosh Nigam of the same locality has also came and said that he wanted to meet to prosecutrix. He was sitting with Hiramani for two hours in front of their house.

On 22-1-2004 father of the prosecutrix filed a written report to Police Station Chorhata and the police registered case in Crime No. 09/2004 under sections 363, 366 and 376 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation. On the same day at about 12:30 PM, the investigation agency secured the prosecutrix from the house of Indrajeet Singh under the panchnama (Ex.P-12) and on the next day i.e. on 23-1-2004, she was sent for medical examination and seized the vehicle which was used for taking her on his motor cycle and arrest the accused persons. After completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet for the offence under sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewa.

3. On appearance of the appellant, copies of the documents are required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. for supply to him. As the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under section 209 of Cr.P.C., accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

4. Basing on the material available on record, strangely the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa framed the charges under sections 363, 366-A and 376 r/w 34 of IPC and the same has been read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the witnesses as PW-1 to PW-14 and got marked Exhibit P-1 to P-21 on behalf of the prosecution. The defence of the appellant was false implication. The defence witness Indrajeet Singh examined as DW-1 and marked Ex.D-1 to D-70.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied, however, he adduced defence witness (DW-1) to support his plea.

7. Relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-14, coupled with the medical evidence, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced the appellant as referred above.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is contrary to the law and facts on record. The learned Judge has not considered the defence evidence and wrongly believed with the prosecution witnesses. There a