DASHARATH SANNAFAKIRAPPA KALASAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The appellant was the accused on the basis of a complaint by the father of one Suvarna. It was alleged in the complaint that on 14.03.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. the complainant's daughter Suvarna and her niece had gone out to ease themselves as there was no toilet in their house and after some time it transpires that Renuka, the niece of the complainant had come running home in a disturbed state and informed the complainant that Suvarna had been kidnapped by some person. Immediately the complainant, his wife and younger brother of the complainant had rushed to the spot where his daughter Suvarna had been abducted and did not find anybody there. The complainant's brother however mentioned that he had seen the accused standing there just before the incident. Therefore after a futile search, throughout the intervening night of 14th and 15th March 2007, for the daughter of the complainant, a complaint was ultimately made at 2.30 a.m. on 15.03.2007 to the Marihal police station about the accused having kidnapped his daughter along with their friends. The Marihal police station having received the complaint and having registered a case for the offences punishable under Section 366A and 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.P.C.' for brevity). The first information report was transmitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate and on the same day conducted spot mahazar of the scene of occurrence and made efforts to trace out the accused. On credible information received by P.W.11 that the accused No.1 with the assistance of accused No.2 were seen carrying the victim Suvarna on a motor cycle towards Mummigatti in Dharwad district, the Police Sub-Inspector had immediately rushed to Mummigatti village and had found the accused and the victim proceeding on a motor-cycle. They were immediately apprehended and the victim was brought back to Belgaum. They were both subjected to medical examination. Accused No.1 was arrested and produced before the Magistrate. Accused No.2 was a juvenile, and therefore, he was produced before the Juvenile Court. The victim was given to the custody of her parents. The accused was arrested on 15.03.2007 and was released on bail on 12.07.2007. Thereafter the accused having been chargesheeted and the Court below having framed the charges the accused had pleaded not guilty and on recording the evidence of the prosecution and after hearing the parties the Court below had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) The trial Court answered the same in the affirmative and convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C. and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.