The Court clarified the distinction between kidnapping and abduction, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent and compulsion in the offense.

1. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15th September, 2017 and 18th September, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Berhampore convicting the appellant under S.366/34 of the Indian Penal Code is under challenge in the instant appeal.

2. During night of 8th / 9th April, 2004 at about 1.00 a.m., minor daughter of the de facto complainant was kidnapped by the appellant and one Abdus Salam forcibly on gunpoint. The daughter of the victim girl could not raise any hue and cry out of fear.

3. The father of the victim girl lodged a written complaint to the Officer - in - Charge, Domkal Police Station on 9th April, 2004. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered Domkal Police Station Case No. 72 of 2004 under S.363/366 of the Indian Penal Code and took up the case for investigation.

4. During investigation, the victim girl was recovered by police on 11th April, 2004. She was medically examined. Her statement was got to be recorded by the learned Magistrate under S.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses under S.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Wearing apparels of the victim girl were seized. She was medically examined. A motor bike on which the accused persons allegedly kidnapped the victim girl was seized. Then, on completion of investigation police submitted charge - sheet against the appellant and his elder brother, namely, Abdus Salam under S.366 of the Indian Penal Code .

5. As the offence under S.366 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was transferred to the Trial Court for trial and disposal.

6. The learned Judge in Court below framed charge against the accused persons under S.366 of the Indian Penal Code . As the accused persons pleaded not guilty trial of the case commenced.

7. In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Amongst them, P.W. 6 is the victim girl, P.W. 1 is the father of the victim, other witnesses being P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are the close relatives of the victim girl, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 are the Medical Officers and P.W. 10 was the Investigating Officer of this case.

8. The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of evidence on record found the appellant and the said Abdus Salam guilty for committing offence under S.366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced accordingly.

9. The said judgment and order of conviction is assailed in the instant appeal.

10. Before dealing with the ingredients of offence under which the appellant was convicted, let me consider the evidence on record independently because this Court of appeal is the last Court of finding of fact. From the Cross - examination of the father of the victim girl, it is ascertained that he gave marriage of his daughter with one Hasibur and on the date of cross - examination, i.e., on 15th May, 2010, the victim girl used to reside with her husband, Hasibur. It is admitted by the father of the victim girl that before Hasibur, she married to one Sentu Mondal and prior to her marriage with Sentu Mondal, the victim girl was allegedly kidnapped by Amirul Islam in the year 2004.

11. Learned advocate for the appellant tries to impress upon this Court on production of the evidence of father and mother of the victim girl that initially, the victim girl was given marriage to the appellant. However, this Court does not find any such evidence on record. During cross - examination of P.W. 1 and 2, a question was put to them as to whether they could mention the date of pronouncing ''talak'' to Amirul. Both of them answered in the negative. However,