The prosecution must provide reliable evidence and corroborate the testimony in cases of kidnapping under Section 363, Penal Code. Additionally, the age of the victim must be established to prove the offence.

1. This appeal of the State Government is directed against the acquittal of the accused-Respondent Kamruddin of an offence punishable under Section 363, Penal Code, for kidnapping Kum. Jai (P.W. 3) alleged to be 15 years of age on 28-4-1954.

2. The prosecution case was that on 28-4-1954 Kum. Jai daughter of Laxman (P.W. 2) was sitting at the 'bangai' of Laxman Kalar (P.W. 8). The Respondent made signs to her calling her to him. She went to the Respondent who offered her inducement of giving her ornaments and clothes and requested her to accompany him to Suknegaon.

She declined. The accused thereupon caught her by the hands, dragged her for some distance, physically lifted her up, put her in a 'rengi' (a small bullock-cart without a roof) and took her away with him to Suknegaon. He kept her in his house for three days, and during that period he had sexual intercourse which her.

3. At the relevant time Kum. Jai was staying with her brother Narayan. On being informed by Narayan, Laxman (P.W. 2) reported the matter to the police on 30-4-1954. Exhibit P-2 is that report. During investigation the station-officer, Moregaon, found Kum. Jai in the house of the Respondent. The Respondent was therefore charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 363, Penal Code.

4. The Respondent in his defence pleaded not guilty to the charge. He further stated that he had not kidnapped Kum. Jai. She had met him at Suknegaon near his 'khalla' and requested him to accompany her to Wani. At that time she informed him that she had a quarrel with her brother and therefore she had come to Suknegaon to stay with her sister. When he was having such talk with Kum. Jai the sub-inspector of Police arrived on the spot and arrested him.

5. The trying Magistrate found that the prosecution case of kidnapping and abduction was not proved. The evidence tendered by the prosecution in support of their case was incredible and no reliance could be placed on it. On these findings the trying Magistrate gave benefit of doubt to the Respondent and acquitted him. Hence this appeal by the State Government.

6. The learned Government Advocate for the State urges that on his own finding the trying Magistrate was in error in acquitting the Respondent. Reliance is placed on the following observations made by the learned Magistrate in paragraph 5 of his judgment: I think she willingly went with him in the hope of getting good clothes and ornaments which were promised to her. It is quite clear from her evidence that she had gone out of her brother's house with the accused Kamruddin without anybody exercising any compulsion on her.

7. In our opinion, there would have been force in this contention if the judgment of the trying Magistrate had rested only at that finding; but the learned Magistrate has in paragraph 8 of the judgment observed: The account thus given by the accused himself through his defence witnesses about the presence of Jai near his house is not an incredible story and it is quite possible that it is at any rate partially true.

8. It would thus appear that the learned Magistrate has believed the defence evidence to the effect that Kum. Jai had come to Suknegaon of her own accord and that she was not induced by the Respondent to accompany him there.

9. It is difficult to reconcile these two findings. We therefore proceed to discuss afresh the following evidence on which reliance is placed by the learned Government Advocate in support of his contention:

(a) Oral evidence of Laxman (P.W. 2), Kum. Jai (P.W. 3), station-officer Sonaji (P.W. 4), Dama (P.W. 5) and Laxman Kalar (P.W. 8). It is submitted that even the testimony of Kum. Jai is sufficient to sustain a charge under Section 363, Penal Code, against the Respondent. The prosecution case is not of rape, and even the uncorroborated testimony of Kum. Jai could be relied upon. Reliance is placed on - Motiram v. The State, 1955 AIR(Nag) 121 and - Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1952 AIR(SC