SALEEM ALIAS MAHAMMEDSALEEM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant called in question the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court -II, Dharwad in S.C. No. 101/2011 in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The case of the prosecution against the accused/appellant is that, the accused on 06.05.2010 at about 12.00 noon near Bengeri Khadi Gramodyog Centre, Hubli, knowing fully well that the complainant's daughter victim girl was a minor, induced her and kidnapped her with an intention to marry her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 366(A) of I.P.C. After the charge sheet being filed and after securing the accused, the learned Sessions Judge framed a charge against the accused for the above said offence and proceeded with the trial.

(2.) IN order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and got marked Ex. P1 to P9 and MOs 1 and 2. Ex. D1 is the relevant statement given by the victim girl before the Police. After analysing and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence under Section 366(A) of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt, and recorded such finding. However, the Trial Court came to the conclusion though the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 366 -A of I.P.C. nevertheless there was sufficient materials to show that the accused had committed an offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. Therefore, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the said offence and sentenced him accordingly.

(3.) I have carefully perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so far it relates to the offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. Before adverting to the evidence of the relevant witnesses PWs 8 and 9 and Investigating Officer and other documentary evidence available on record, it is just and necessary to bear in mind the observations made by the Trial Court in recording the conviction against the accused for the above said offence. The Trial Court in its judgment at para 35 has narrated that: