JAIRAM BHOI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. No.50 of 1992 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") for commission of offence under Sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of two months.

(2.) Adumbrating the fact as unfolded before the trial court is that on 21.01.1991 the accused, a co-villager (P.W.4) aged about 16 years old had induced the victim girl to leave her lawful guardianship, being swayed by the version of the accused, the victim left her lawful guardianship and eloped with the accused, spent a night with him in a nearby betel vine. They shuttle from one place to other and ultimately they reached Cuttack where they sworn an affidavit showing their status as 'husband' and 'wife'. When the victim was found missing, on the report of her father, investigation taken up, the victim was rescued and restored to her lawful guardianship, police took up investigation of the case touching all aspects and on completion thereof placed charge-sheet against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. The learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, however, framed charge under Sec. 366 of Penal Code alone against the accused who abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, therefore, examined 8 witnesses and exhibited similar number of documents. The accused who had taken the plea of denial and false implication, however, did not choose to adduce any defence in his support.

(3.) On conclusion of the trial, placing reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the evidence of the victim girl (P.W.4) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.8), the learned trial court returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated aforesaid.