The main legal point established is the requirement of evidence of force or enticement for a conviction of kidnapping under IPC 363, and the reliance on victim testimony and circumstances for a conviction of outraging modesty under IPC 354.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.

1. By means of this revision petition, the judgment & order dated 08.06.2016 delivered in Criminal Appeal 00000001 of 2016 by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar has been challenged. The learned trial court by judgment & order of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.2015 passed in case No. ST (Type-2) 02 of 2015, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as follows:

This judgment & order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court having been affirmed by the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the aggrieved petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

Sri Sudhanya Nath, S/O-Sri Rabindra Nath of Dharmanagar lodged a written complaint with the Officer in Charge of Dharmanagar police station alleging, inter alia, that on 02.09.2013 in the morning when his 12 years' old daughter was going to her school, the petitioner, an auto driver, forcibly lifted his daughter on his vehicle and got her seated beside him on his seat and outraged her modesty inside the vehicle. As the petitioner did not stop the vehicle even after crossing her school, the victim jumped out of the vehicle to save herself. Sri Madan Nath, driver of auto rickshaw bearing registration No. TR-02-A-2661, who was carrying passenger in his vehicle along the same road saw the petitioner lifting the victim into his vehicle and informed the father of the victim who reported the matter to police by lodging the FIR.

3. Based on his FIR, Dharmanagar P.S. case No. 166 of 2013 under sections 354, 366A and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) was registered and the investigation of the case was taken up.

4. During investigation, the statement of the victim under section 164(5) Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she supported the FIR case and stated that when she was going to school at about 10.30 am on 02.09.2013 to sit for her examination, the auto rickshaw of the petitioner stood in front of her and the petitioner driver offered a lift to her for taking her to her school. Initially, she disagreed. Though back seat of the vehicle was vacant, the petitioner driver asked her to sit with him on his seat. After she sat there, the petitioner started driving his vehicle with one hand and he kept the other hand on her breasts. When he did not stop the vehicle, inspite of crossing her school, she started shouting for help. Thereafter, she jumped from the vehicle to save herself. The petitioner driver then fled away with his vehicle.

5. Sri Ashish Kr. Das, SI of police conducted the whole investigation of the case and on completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet No. 142 of 2013 against the petitioner for having committed offence punishable under sections 354, 366A, 323 and 511 IPC. The said charge sheet was received by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and cognizance of offence was taken. After the case was committed to the court of Sessions, it was transferred to the court of the Asstt. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar for trial.

6. The learned trial court framed charges of offence punishable under sections 354 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. After the charges were read over and explained to the petitioner, he pleaded not guilty to both the charges and claimed a trial. During trial, as many as 10 (ten) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the first informant father of the victim [PW-1], the victim [PW-7], the medical officer [PW-8] and the investigating officer [PW-9]. Apart from the ocular testimony of these witnesses, 6 (six) documents were also i