PRASANTA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th April, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakehemundi in Sessions Case No. 11/188 of 1991/1990, convicting the appellant under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. in short) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 (rupees two thousand) in default to undergo further R. I. for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 14.1.1990, the informant one Babu Sahu Naik orally reported before the Mohana Police Station that his 15 years old daughter Ramani and his son Dusasan had gone to a Bamboo Depot of Gadaharpur for labour work on 5.1.1990. On 10.1.1990 since his daughter fell ill, she was coming back home along with one Malli Naik of the village of the informant when the accused-appellant along with his brother one Sukanta Naik forcibly took her to their village. The said Malli Naik informed this matter to the informant and hearing this, the informant along with his wife proceeded to the village of the accused-appellant and saw their daughter in his house. When the informant wanted to bring back his daughter, the accused-appellant did not leave her and coming back to the village the informant informed the matter to his elder brother and waited for about four days but since his daughter did not come back, reported the matter at the Police Station orally on 14.1.1990. Pursuant to the report, concerned P.S. Case No. 7 of 1990 was registered under sections 363/34 of the I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, the victim was rescued and was left with her parents after being medically examined, and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the present accused-appellant under sections 363 and 366 of the I.P.C. Charges were framed accordingly to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and faced the trial.

(3.) In course of hearing, seven witness have been examined on behalf of the prosecution as against none preferred in defence. On consideration of the materials placed before the Court during trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi found and held the accused guilty only under section 363 of the I.P.C. and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.