AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 374 wordsAnjana Prakash, J.—Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP is appointed to appear as amicus curiae in the present appeal.
The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 366 and 366A IPC whereas the Appellant No. 1 has been convicted for eight years on both counts, the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted for five years under both counts by a judgment dated 06.04.1988 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in S. Tr. No. 257 of 1986.
The case of the prosecution is that on 25.11.1983 the informant reported that he suspected that the Appellant No. 1 with the assistance of the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 had kidnapped his daughter.
The prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom P.W. 3 is the prosecutrix whereas P.W. 4 is the Doctor who examined her and P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 are corroborative witnesses. Even though the First Information Report was that the prosecutrix was about 12 to 14 years of age but the Doctor who examined her was of the opinion that she was around 16 to 17 years of age. It also appears that the prosecutrix was with the Appellants for about twenty days and it does not seem probable that a girl of about 16 to 17 years would be kept without her consent for such a long period even though the prosecutrix has stated so. Moreover, the corroborative witnesses have merely stated that they had seen the victim going along with the Appellant No. 1 which further confirms the suspicion that it was a case of consent between the parties and it is only when a report was made about the present occurrence that the victim back tracked and stated that she was kidnapped.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 06.04.1988 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in S. Tr. No. 257 of 1986 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.
In case the Appellant No. 1 is still in jail custody he shall be released forthwith.
Let a copy of this judgment be handed over to Mrs. Madhuri Lata appeared as amicus curiae for the Appellants.