The court upheld the conviction under Section 366 IPC for kidnapping a minor, affirming the trial court's findings of evidence and intent.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 06-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2004 passed by the learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah in Sessions Trial Nos. 84 of 2002, arising out of Piprasi P.S. Case No.06 of 2000 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine, he has to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. The prosecution case is based on the written complaint of one Nandu Rai to the effect that on 26.02.2000 at 5.00 A.M., his minor daughter, aged about 15 years, went outside to attend the call of nature, but she did not return and she was kidnapped by the appellant Binod Kumar Kuswaha for the purpose of marrying her. During the course of investigation, the victim was recovered.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, the police instituted Piprasi P.S. Case No.06/2000 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 366A of the Indian Penal Code . The police took up the investigation of the case. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the co-accused persons including the appellant under sections 363, 366 and 366(A) of Indian Penal Code , 1860. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken for the offence under sections 363, 366 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code . The case has been committed to the court of sessions, where charges were framed under Section 366 (A), to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 is Bhim Baitha (neighbour of the informant), P.W.2 is Mathura Rai (neighbour of the informant), P.W. 3 is Heera Bin (neighbour of the informant), P.W. 4 is Gayanti Devi (mother of the victim), P.W. 5 is Lal Parikhan Rai, who is resident of another village, P.W. 6 is Purnima Kumar @ Poonam (the victim girl), P.W. 7 is Nandu Rai (informant and the father of the victim girl himself), P.W. 8 is Noor Mohammad Mansoori and P.W.9 is Sk. Murtuza (both are formal witnesses).

6. The defence did not examine any witness on its behalf.

7. The learned trial court after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellant and, accordingly, the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed, which is under challenge before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are formal witnesses. So far as the remaining three witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 4, 6 & 7 are concerned, through came in support of allegation made by the informant, but they could not support of manner of occurrence by giving contradictory statements. P.W. 4 stated that in the morning the victim took a shawl from her and went outside the house and then she did not come back, while P.W. 6 stated that she was kidnapped from her house while she was sleeping, but contrary to the P.W.7, he stated in his deposition that his daughter was kidnapped by the appellant while she had gone to attend the call of nature. The learned counsel further submits that neither P.W. 4 nor P.W. 7 claimed to see taking away of the victim by the appellant, whereas P.W. 6 narrated another story for taking away to her house. The lear