The court ruled that the absence of evidence of inducement nullifies the abduction charges, and a consensual relationship may not constitute a crime, particularly where the age of consent is challenged.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.8.2021 passed in Special Criminal Case (POSCO) No.27/2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POSCO Act), District Baloda Bazar (CG) whereby, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence as mentioned hereunder :
Conviction Sentence Under S.363 of the IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, RI for 3 months Under S.366 of the IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, RI for 3 months Under S.4 of the RI for 7 years and fine of POSCO Act Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months.

2. The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix (PW - 4), aged about 17 years and the appellant, both were having a love affair. On 11.5.2017, at night, when everyone were asleep, the prosecutrix ran away from the house. The father of the prosecutrix (PW - 5) lodged a missing report on 12.5.2017 vide Ex.P / 23 in this regard. The prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the appellant on 6.5.2018, and out of their such relationship, a child was also born, who was 3 months of age, vide Recovery Memo - Ex.P / 6. On the basis of the information given by the father of the prosecutrix (PW - 5), initially, an offence under S.363 of the IPC was registered vide Ex.P / 12. During investigation, the School Admission Register - Ex.P / 14 was seized, in which, the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been recorded as 10.7.2000.
The prosecutrix did not consent for the medical examination and the appellant was found capable of performing sexual intercourse (Medical Examination Report - Ex.P / 18). The statements were recorded and the Site Map - Ex.P / 23 was prepared and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. The appellant abjured his guilt and in his statement recorded under S.313 of Cr.P.C., he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The appellant has not examined any witness in his defence.

4. After completion of trial, the appellant vide the impugned judgment, has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from illegality and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel prays for acquitting the appellant on the above grounds.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the appeal and supports the impugned judgment. He would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper marshelling of evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered with while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below.

8. The prosecutrix (PW - 4) deposed that two years prior to the incident, she was having a love affair with the appellant and when her family members came to know about the said fact, they started searching groom for her. When this came to the knowledge of the prosecutrix, she voluntarily left her house and went to Raipur. After reaching Raipur, the prosecutrix searched for the appellant's mobile number and on contacting him, she found that at that time, the appellant was at Bangalore. The prosecturix asked her to take her along