ABDUL KAYUUM Vs. VIJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE is heard. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 03.03.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Sessions Trial No.76/2011. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Judge has found respondent No.1 guilty of an offence punishable under section 363 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. However, respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charges under sections 366 and 376 of the IPC.

(2.) A criminal prosecution was launched against respondent no.1 on the allegation that he abducted a minor girl and took her to Ujjain. Thereafter he took the minor girl to Gwalior where she was confined in a room for three to four months and ravished her against her will. A report of missing person was lodged by the applicant in the police station Meghnagar. The abducted girl was rescued from respondent no.1 on 7.4.2011 and she was sent for medical examination. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against respondent No.1 for having committed offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. Respondent No.1 denied the charges, therefore, he was put to trial.

(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsel and going through the impugned judgment, we do not find any force in the submissions. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the Court below has taken into consideration the entire evidence and has found that the girl was a willing party and she left with respondent no.1 without raising any hue and cry though she had ample opportunity. The Court below has rightly found that the conduct of the abducted girl belies the prosecution story so far as offences punishable under sections 366 and 376 IPC are concerned. Just because on the date of the offence the abducted girl happened to be less than 18 years of age, therefore, offence under section 363 was made out because abducted girls was taken from the lawful guardianship. Section 361 of the IPC defines kidnapping and provides that whoever takes or entices a minor girl if she is under 18 years of age out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without the consent of such guardian is said to have committed the offence of kidnapping which is punishable under section 363 IPC. It is not a prosecution case that respondent No.1 committed any offence punishable under section 363A or 364 or 364A. The section does not prescribe any minimum sentence, therefore, it was within the discretion of the trial Judge to impose a sentence which could have extended up to 7 years. Learned counsel could not point out any illegality in the exercise of that discretion so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional powers. We do not find any merit and substance in the revision. Same stands dismissed.