Sumit Kumar vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

According to the prosecution, the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was less than 17 years old, on 6.1.1996 at about 1.30 p.m. when she was returning from the school to her house. He forcibly took her to Railway Station, Amritsar, where he made her smell something as a result of which she became unconscious. She regained consciousness in a room of a hotel at Delhi. They stayed in that hotel for a couple of days during which the appellant tried to molest and rape the prosecutrix but she did not allow him to do so. On 14.1.1996 the appellant was apprehended by the police at Central Bus Stand, Amritsar and the prosecutrix was also with him at that time.

The FIR was registered on 7.1.1996 on the basis of a statement made by father of the prosecutrix. He had stated therein that his daughter had been enticed away by the appellant, who left for her school on 6.1.1996 in the morning but neither she returned home nor could be traced.

The trial Court had charged the appellant for an offence u/s 366 IPC for kidnapping the prosecutrix with intent that she might be compelled to marry him and to have sexual intercourse with him against her will. The prosecution had examined eight witnesses in support of its case. The plea of the appellant was that he had no relations with the prosecutrix and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not lead any evidence in support of his plea.

After going through the evidence, the trial Court held that the appellant was not liable for the offence u/s 366 IPC, as it was found as a matter of fact that the prosecutrix had close intimacy with the appellant and they together worked out a plan under which the prosecutrix voluntarily and willingly accompanied the appellant after the school hours on 6.1.1996, remained/moved upto 14.1.1996 when the appellant was arrested at Bus Stand, Amritsar and the prosecutrix recovered. However, as the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age and her father was her lawful guardian, the appellant was convicted u/s 363 IPC and sentenced, as mentioned above.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant remained in jail as an under trial prisoner for about three months. He has already paid the fine of Rs. 1000/-imposed upon him by the trial Court. He had been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 14 years. He has since got married. Similarly, the prosecutrix has also got married and living at her in-laws'' place. The appellant is a first offender and a petty shopkeeper. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the appellant be reduced.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant by submitting that the appellant took advantage of the young age of the prosecutrix by removing her from the lawful guardianship of her father and taking her to Delhi where he kept her for a period of about a week. Therefore, no case is made out for showing any leniency to the appellant in the matter of sentence.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars, once again, so as to serve his remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be best met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him and at the same time, the fine of Rs. 1000/- enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-.

Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant u/s 363 IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is, however, enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine be deposited by the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar within two months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.