SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is rightly said that love is blind. Love can be foolish also. Sometimes the selection goes wrong and the consequence is endless suffering. This case is the story of a young girl who falls in love with a married man. Leaves her house, leaves her parents. Elopes with her paramour holding fast to dreams. Dreams crumble to dust. Realization comes very soon to her. Her lover's love was not true love. She repents and yells in pain, "I will never have an affair with a married man again."

(2.) The prosecution case, as per FIR lodged by one Chinilal Sabar (P.W.9) on 05.05.2010 before the Inspector -In -Charge, Nuapada Police Station is that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe and the victim who is his daughter was aged about 17 to 18 years. On 18.11.2009 while the victim was staying in the house of her elder mother in village Jhilmila, the appellant called her over telephone and informed her about her mother's illness. The appellant further intimated her that her father had been to Bargarh and brother had been to Gujarat and nobody was present in the house to look after her ailing mother and asked her to come back to her house. The victim with her elder mother returned back to her house. It is further stated in the FIR that on 19.11.2009 night the appellant kidnapped the victim and on 21.11.2009 at about 7.00 a.m. the paternal uncle of the appellant namely Jagadish Sahu intimated the elder brother of the informant namely Mandhar Sabar that the appellant had kidnapped the victim and they would search for both of them and thereafter the victim would be handed over to her parents. With such assurance being given by the paternal uncle of the appellant, the informant waited but since the victim did not return back even after a considerable period, the FIR was lodged on 05.05.2010.

(3.) After observing due committal formalities, the case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Session for trial where the learned trial court first framed charge against the appellant under Sec. 363 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(xv) of SC and ST (PA) Act on 19.08.2010 and since the appellant denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. Subsequently in the midst of trial, on a petition filed by the Special Public Prosecutor, the charge was altered to one under Sec. 366 of IPC and on 21.07.2011 the learned trial Court reframed the charge under Sec. 366 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(xv) of SC and ST (PA) Act to which also the appellant pleaded not guilty.