Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hemraj s/o Sampatrao Bhoyar, was convicted by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 163/1997 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (kidnapping). He was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000, with default imprisonment of two months. The case arose from an incident on 20 August 1996, when a 17-year-old girl (prosecutrix) went to college but did not return. Her parents suspected that the appellant, a neighbourhood boy, had enticed her away. They also noticed that cash and jewellery were missing from their home. The police traced the couple to Bilaspur, where they were found at the appellant's uncle's house, and brought them back to Nagpur. The appellant was charged along with two co-accused, who were acquitted. The trial court convicted only the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-2). She initially denied any love affair with the appellant but later admitted to voluntarily accompanying him. The court found her testimony to be inconsistent and unreliable. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant enticed or took the girl away from lawful guardianship. The court noted that the girl was a consenting party and that the ingredients of Section 363 IPC were not satisfied. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - Enticement - Minor - The appellant was convicted for kidnapping a 17-year-old girl. The prosecutrix initially denied any love affair but later admitted to voluntarily accompanying the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove enticement or taking away from lawful guardianship, as the girl's testimony was inconsistent and she was a consenting party. (Paras 1-9) B) Evidence - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Inconsistency - Benefit of Doubt - The prosecutrix's evidence was found to be unreliable due to contradictions regarding the love affair and the circumstances of leaving home. The court held that such inconsistent testimony cannot form the basis of conviction, and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping a minor girl is sustainable when the prosecutrix's testimony is inconsistent and she voluntarily accompanied the accused.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 363 IPC. The appellant was given benefit of doubt.
Law Points
- Section 363 IPC
- Kidnapping
- Age of consent
- Enticement
- Minor
- Love affair
- Inconsistent testimony
- Benefit of doubt
