Bankim Das vs State Of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AP.P. on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the informant.

This Criminal Appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 30.04.2012 in Sessions Trial Case No. 327 of 2011 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

Though charge was also framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code but the appellant was acquitted of the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no ingredients of section 363 of the Indian Penal Code on the facts of this case. He submits that there was love affair between the victim and this appellant. Even the eye-witnesses who are PW3 and PW4, did not state that this appellant had forcibly taken the victim with him.

The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the informant and the State submitted that the victim girl was 14 years old and she was seen alongwith this appellant going in the motorcycle which clearly suggest that she was kidnapped.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the evidence, the deposition and the exhibits.

Though the appellant was charged under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and section 376 of the Indian Penal Code but the trial Court has convicted this appellant only under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

In this case there were nine witnesses. Most of the witnesses are hearsay who have only stated that they have heard that this appellant had kidnapped the victim girl. PW1 is the mother of the victim and PW2 is the informant and the father of the victim. They are admittedly not the eye-witnesses but they stated that this appellant has kidnapped the victim girl.

The star witnesses in this case are PW3 and PW4, who are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW3 is Chandi Charan Sarkar, he stated that he had seen this victim girl going with the appellant in a motorcycle. He stated that victim girl was aged about 14 years but he stated that when this witness was near the pond, he had seen the victim girl coming out of her house and she was alone. This witness never stated that he had seen the appellant taking the victim forcibly, rather he has stated that there was love affair between the victim and this appellant. PW4, Tapan Sarkar is also an eye-witness. He stated that the victim girl was 14 years old and he had seen this appellant taking the girl from near the pond in a motorcycle at about 2:00 PM. He also has not stated that the appellant had taken the victim girl forcefully.

From the prosecution evidence it is clear that there is nothing on record that this appellant had enticed the minor girl to accompany him without the consent of the guardian. Though the victim has stated that she was forcefully taken and when she tried to shout she was gagged but this fact is not supported by the eye-witness who had seen the victim girl in the motorcycle of this appellant. PW3 and PW4 had stated that the girl was in the motorcycle and he had seen the girl but they have not stated that the girl was gagged or she was in such a state which would give an impression that she was forced to go with the appellant.

Further there are several exhibits, which are love letters. These letters which are Exhibit-A to A/9 have been exhibited without any objection. In these letters this girl has shown that she was in love with this appellant. Though in these letters the name Ravi has been mentioned as her lover but the fact remains which is admitted from the evidence of DW1 that the girl used to call this appellant as Ravi Das Baisnav and Banka also.

Considering all these materials, I am of the opinion that no case to punish the appellant under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is made out in this case. Thus, this appeal stands allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial Case No. 327 of 2011 is set-aside.

Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged of the liabilities of the bail bonds so are the bailors.

As the appeal has been allowed, I.A No. 168 of 2023 also stands disposed of.