Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sau. Banu Ramchandra Borgaonkar and Sandip Kedar Pande, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, for offences under Sections 363 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on 22nd September 2008, the appellants, along with two minors Shubham and Shubhangi, kidnapped Priya, a minor daughter of Rani Shinde, from Barshi. The victim Priya was taken to a room in Mandane Chawl where the appellants were present, and they all stayed there for the night. The trial court sentenced appellant no.1 to three years simple imprisonment and appellant no.2 to five years rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping. The appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim Priya, who stated that she went with the appellants voluntarily and was not forced. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of 'taking' or 'enticing' under Section 363 IPC. The victim's testimony was inconsistent and did not support the prosecution case. The court held that mere presence of the victim with the appellants does not constitute kidnapping. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - Taking or Enticing - The prosecution must prove that the accused took or enticed the minor from lawful guardianship. In this case, the victim Priya voluntarily accompanied the appellants and there was no evidence of force or inducement. The court held that mere presence of the victim with the appellants does not constitute kidnapping. (Paras 1-13) B) Evidence Law - Testimony of Minor - Corroboration - The testimony of the minor victim Priya was found to be unreliable and inconsistent. The court noted that her statement did not support the prosecution case and she admitted to going willingly. Held that conviction cannot be based on such shaky evidence. (Paras 4-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Appellate Court's Power - The appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact if they are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the trial court's conviction was set aside as the evidence did not establish the offence. (Paras 1-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the offence of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC by taking or enticing the minor victim Priya from her lawful guardianship.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Kidnapping
- Section 363 IPC
- Taking or enticing
- Minor
- Consent
- Acquittal
