BAGULA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in Sessions Trial No. 232 of 1992 has filed this revision challenging the order of conviction for the offence u/s. 363, IPC as per the trial court's judgment dt. 22-11-1993 and the confirming judgment of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Crl.Appeal No. 145 of 1993 vide judgment dt. 6-7-1994.

(2.) Prosecution case in short is that Pravasini Samal (P.W.3) daughter of the informant Rabi Narayan Samal (P.W.1) and then a student of Class VI on 23-8-1991 was playing after returning from School and when P.W.1 scolded to discipline her, she ran away from the house. At College Square in Cuttack town, petitioner assured her to take her to her aunt's house, which is situated about 500 metres from his house, took P.W.3 and confined her in his house. Thereafter under threat he took her to Athgarh and after obtaining signature on some papers brought back her after which Police got custody of P.W.3, who according to her father (P.W.1) was aged about 12 years by then. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence u/s 366/343, IPC was filed and the petitioner faced the trial.

(3.) To substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined nine witnesses and relied upon documents vide Exts. 1 to 8. Defence did not adduce any evidence. On assessment of the evidence in record i.e. the evidence of P.W.1 Rabi Narayan Samal, P.W.7 who is the Head Mistress of the School and two doctors (P.Ws 6 and 8), trial court found that according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7, victim girl was aged about 13 years by the date of occurrence and according to the medical report, she was aged about 14 to 15 years. Trial court recorded the finding that even if granting the margin of error than also P.W.3 was found to be a girl below the age of 18 years and therefore she was a minor and was not free to be taken anywhere without the consent of her guardian. Referring to the evidence of P.W.3 i.e. victim girl and her father (P.W.1) trial Court recorded that petitioner had kidnapped her and accordingly convicted the petitioner for the offence u/s 363, IPC though charge had been framed for the offences u/ss. 366/342, IPC.Petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I.for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and also a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.